Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

_________________
I come from bhz! I come in peace!

that slope sure is slippery, isn't it?

I do think that gay marriage is harmful to society, but no more harmful that homosexuality in general. I'd like to describe why I think that it is harmful to society, and it goes a lot deeper than just homosexuality. Didymus said somewhere that he doesn't think that homosexuality falls within the category of a healthy attitude toward sexuality. I agree with him on that statement. But I think there are lots of current attitudes that aren't healthy with regards to sex.

The parent belief for lots of unhealthy sexual attitudes is the belief that the purpose of sex is entertainment. I'm not sure how widely this is consciously acknowledged, but a short time examining television programs, movies, music, magazines, and the internet will reveal that there is plenty out there that reinforces that idea. There are many behaviors that reflect a belief in this idea, such as pre-marital sex, pornography, strip clubs, masturbation, homosexuality, adultery, rape, etc. Note that I am not saying that all of these behaviors are of equal gravitas, or are equally harmful to society. But they all reflect that same core idea, that sex is for entertainment.

I believe that this idea is harmful to society. The belief that sex is for entertainment is destructive to individuals. It is the cause for the dissolution of many (I'd think most) marriages, as it ruins peoples' capacity to have normal relationships with anyone. Stable families are the basis of a stable society. For people whose actions reflect this belief, monogamy and fidelity over a long period are impossible. I believe that it is in the best interests of society in general for families to be stable.

Because I think that stable families are desirable for society, I believe the government should play a role in minimizing things that teach the idea that sex is for entertainment. The government already does lots in that area, by having laws restricting access to pornographic materials, by strictly regulating and minimizing adult clubs, enforcing ratings for games, movies, tv shows, etc. Although the government has no role in preventing adults from engaging in behaviors that reflect that idea, I don't think that it is in society's interest for the government to condone or encourage behaviors that reflect said idea. Since I believe that homosexuality reflects the belief that sex is for entertainment, and I believe that legalizing gay marriage would condone that behavior, I don't believe that the government should legalize gay marriage.

Now let me just say that with all the other influences out there destabilizing families, and spreading that belief, gay marriage is probably just a drop in the bucket. As many of you have pointed out, if we are worried about the sanctity of marriage, the divorce rate would be a place to start. Gay marriage would probably be one of the smaller influences that spread that belief. So if (when) the Supreme Court legalizes it, I'm not going to be up in arms. I should focus more on helping people treat the problem, helping eliminate that core wrong belief, than criminalizing the symptom of that belief.

I hope this was clear, and I hope I explained why I'm not going to encourage the government to legalize homosexual marriages. I also hope I did it in a way that you can understand (though not necessarily agree) with my views, without having bring God or religion into the discussion.

I understand your stance that "sex for entertainment", as you put it, is bad. I don't disagree entirely, but I don't agree entirely, either. But I'm a bit boggled at the point where you start to try to relate homosexuality to "sex for entertainment".

From what I've observed, sex in our society is chiefly a way for two people to express their love for one another in the most intimate way possible. There is a large segment of the population for whom sex is about nothing more than "a good time", and there's another segment for whom sex is only about making babies. But chiefly, I believe sex is about expressing love. Personally, I can't think of a healthier context for sex.

Homosexuals do not have sex for different reasons that heterosexual people. They can't make babies, clearly, but apart from that they have sex for the same reasons as everybody else -- chiefly, either for "entertainment" or to express their love for one another. I don't see any evidence that there are more homosexuals having "sex for entertainment" than heterosexuals, proportionally speaking. Homosexual sex, in the broad view, is not just about "having a good time" any more heterosexual sex.

And then there's gay marriage. I honestly don't see where marriage fits into your puzzle. When two people marry eachother, it's because they're in love. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but it's safe to say that 98% of all marriages, regardless of the sex of the participants, take place because the participants are in love with one another to the best of their estimation. So 98% of gay married couples, just like the 98% of heterosexual married couples, aren't having sex for entertainment, but to intimately express their love for one another. It would seem to me that if "sex for entertainment" is what you have a problem with, gay marriage is not contributing to that problem any more than heterosexual marriage is.

But let's say that we have this "sex for entertainment problem" and we want to "fix" it. Let's make up some (intentionally inflated) numbers: We have 1,000 sexually active people in our population. 50% of these people are having sex for entertainment, the rest are having sex for what we'll call "healthy reasons". 10% of those people are homosexual, the rest are heterosexual. So when we divide up the population we have something like this:



So where do we start fixing this problem? Well, we could try Solution A, by focusing on homosexuality as the problem: marginalize all homosexuals, by pretending that homosexuality doesn't exist, outlaw all "homosexual-like" institutions, e.g. gay marriage, communal showers at health clubs, buying lubricant without a prescription, men's pink sweaters, TV shows about men who love eachother, whatever, and somehow, magically, eradicate all homosexual sex. Well, hey! We just eliminated 10% of all "sex for entertainment". Bummer about all those homosexuals who are now treated as less than human, but we solved a whopping 10% of this, society's greatest problem! Now our population slooks like this:



Well, hey, those numbers are nothing to scoff at. But maybe we could approach this problem from another angle (we'll call it Solution B). How about we figure out why "sex for entertainment" is so prevalent in our society? Well, I'll start out with the obvious: the media. Watch MTV for two seconds. You know what I mean. Let's come up with another disproportionate number: 90% of the media that glorifies "sex for entertainment", glorifies heterosexual sex for entertainment. That 90% still, surely, has some effect on homosexuals, but let's be serious about who it's targetting. Let's say that we eradicate 100% of the media that glorifies "sex for entertainment" for anybody. And for our hypothetical situation, let's say that that fixes 50% of the "sex for entertainment" problem proportionally (i.e. 90/10). Now let's look at our population again:



Take a look at what Solution A accomplishes. Take a look at what Solution B accomplishes. Is Solution A the solution? Or does Solution B help society more? Where, as a nation, should we be focusing our efforts? Keeping some homosexuals from expressing their undying love for one another through marriage, but preventing the rest from having sex for entertainment? Or improving society's attitudes and inclinations toward sex as a whole? Hmm.

_________________

Kos has a post up called "Give 'marriage' to the Churches", which basically echoes what I've been saying for about a year (though in a bit of a different tone).

_________________

There's a problem with that strategy as well, though. While many of your fundamentalist and orthodox churches (like the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) do not condone homosexual behavior or marriages, some, like the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church do. And I forgot to mention: what about synagogues and mosques? Would they have the right to the term marriage?

But I do think government has too much hand in this whole thing called marriage. But they have legal reasons for doing it, so it's not likely to change anytime soon.

_________________

I don't see the problem. The idea is that the state would abandon the concept of marriage entirely and let organizations which care about what it means to them define it as they please. As far as the state is concerned, all marriages would be recognized equally -- i.e. not at all. And no church would have to recognize a marriage conducted by any other church, if it conflicted with their beliefs. If I were a religious person, I would be all the more entusiastic about this. "Keep the feds out of our chapels," as they say.

The state would only grant civil unions, and would do so on the same criteria as it does marriage licenses, except without all the religiously-inspired nonsense*. Any two people who declare before the state that they wish to dedicate the rest of their lives to one another deserve the same rights (e.g. visitation, medical decisions, shared property, inheritance) as any other two people.

*Note: I am not saying religion itself is nonsensical, I am saying allowing any religion to shape policy is nonsensical.

_________________

First of all, I'd like to say to everyone. I've been a Homestar fan for . . . about 2 years. This is the first time I've been to these forums, or this site, for that matter. Seems like a nice place.

Now I just had to post this as a new topic, I read through the other thread pertaining to this, and didn't find anything like what I'm about to say, so here goes.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm sure you all know where that quote comes from, and indeed it is what our entire country and governmental system is based on. Weren't the orignal settlers of the US trying to escape persecution of various forms? Is this not the same idea that draws so many immigrants to America? Well, if we're going to ban gay marriage, not to mention keep illegal the medicinal uses of (now) illegal narcotics, isn't that contradictory to what we supposedly stand for? What a better way to enthuse someone's "pusuit of happiness" than to not let them be happy.

Another issue I'd like to address is religious freedom. First of all, the seperation of church and state is total BS, every dollar bill you have says "In God we trust" on it. Marriage, in the terms we think of it, is religious. Do homosexuals who want to be married have religious intentions, or are they merely trying to reap the lifelong and governmental benefits attainable when they are legally married to one another? Even President Buh agrees that, based on Christianity, a marriage is between a man and a woman. Does this mean you must be religious, preferably a Christian, in order to be married?

So, can we surmise that 1) The government leans toward religion when making decisions, 2) Our President likes Christians, as does most of high society, 3) We have contradicted our beliefs by combing Christianity with our Government, and eliminating certain people's "pusuit of happiness". Our founding fathers did use the phrase "endowed by their creator," etc, etc. Were they hung up on religion as well? Religion was bigger back then, but they still effectively passed onto today, where religion is less apparent although more arguable, our government.

So, what are we progressing into?

Although, one might say that the keywords in all of this are "pursuit of happiness". Not "living in happiness", but "pursuit of happiness". Pursuit. This is what it all boils down to. Every able citizen of the US has the responsibility to pursue happiness, whatever that may be. Our founding fathers new our society would never be complete, as the nature of civilization is to progress and not stagnate. Thus, whatever changes may appear in our world, we have the right to make an attempt at change for the better.

I once heard a quote somewhere of --- "I don't believe in God, but I sure am afraid of him."

Decide for yourselves.

------ http://www.danwormek.blogspot.com -------

First of all, we already have a thread for this topic. Starting a new thread isn't helping the discussion at all. I would suggest you copy your post to that thread so a friendly mod can baleet this one.


In this, I will reply mainly to the use of narcotics. Happiness doesn't mean "immediate pleasure." If you believe people can be happy with a lifestyle of abusing narcotics, then why don't you come over here to St. Louis sometime. I can show you where I served as Chaplain this past summer at the Jefferson Barracks VAMC. I'll bet I can find PLENTY of people who would testify that narcotics DON'T make you a happy person, ans who can tell you that from personal experience.

Happiness is not the same thing as instant gratification. It does take into account the long-term consequences of your actions, as well as the effects of those actions on other people. A serial killer can take pleasure in killing victims, but the long-term consequences, as well as the effects of that action on others, have detrimental results. I'm not addressing gay marriage specifically, but rather your feeble attempt to throw in a bit of "legalize drugs" propaganda.

You might do well to sort out the distinction between happiness and instant gratification. Furthermore, I will add, if you do make a regular habit of using narcotics, seek help immediately for your own health. In case you missed it, Jefferson Barracks operates a drug rehab center, so I have some idea what I'm talking about here.

_________________

Okay, I now relaize I didn't explain the narcotics bit! I didn't mean to say "legalizing" now illegal narcotics; rather, I wanted to convey that people who are terminally ill and/or in extreme pain should be able to leagally use some drugs (such as marijuana, which many people already do use for this purpose, although it is illegal) to ease their suffering. We shouldn't let these people waste away by letting them suffer. That's what I was going to say, but I forgot to finish off my thought. Please don't think I want drugs legalized, we need tighter control on them as it is. Everday at school guys . . . I"ll keep this kid friendly, you get the idea.

I do not take drugs, and will never in my life touch drugs. I have trouble taking a Sudafed and not worrying about liver damage. I don't understand people who can do drugs and think they feel good, when actually they feel 'normal' while taking them, and feel like crap when they don't. I don't understand how you can put yourself at that risk. However, under a doctor's supervision and advice/guidance/etc, a person who is indeed physically suffering should be allowed to ease their pain with at least derivatives of certain drugs. Legalizing some for medicinal purposes would however open up a whole new can o' worms in itself, which is why politicians argue against it.

As for "instant gratification", anyone who hears me talk about this stuff usally goes to that. Of course there is , I don't want to say a 'fine' line, but there is a line that's crossed when law is abused, and instant gratification would be a good example.

I live in Saint Louis too, about 1/2 mile west of JB! What a coincidence! In fact, i just finished off some Imo's pizza.

How about that? I live up in Clayton, up by Concordia. And I work at a place called Laclede Groves over in Webster.

Sorry about the accusation, then. I work with elderly adults. We get a lot of hospice patients, too, so I can certainly understand that about alleviating pain.

_________________

Im against, I saw to lesbian lovers like almost kissing a few days ago and i just KNEW it was worng.

No, you didn't; you've been trained to believe it's wrong. There's a difference.

_________________

I missed a few posts, presumably because they were in the other thread Didymus mentioned and merged with this one. I don't browse the forums much anymore; I just wait for notifications in my gmail box.



Yay. You even spelled "wrong" wrong.

Look, first off, you should recognize that your opinions and the government's opinions are 1) two very different things, and 2) they should be. So many people fail to recognize this and it irritates me to no end. The "logic" of "I think this is wrong, so there should be a law against it" is not really logic. It is not the job of the legislature and/or the courts to reflect the personal opinions of some guy (or some guys) -- even the Congressmen and judges seem to get confused on that matter sometimes. It is their job to work out a set of laws that best fits the entire population, protecting as many people as possible (both majorities and minorities).

That's a key word: protection. Virtually all law is either some kind of tax, or a form of protection for somebody. What does a law against gay marriage protect against?

Nothing.

Now, cyco, unless you have anything other than pure noise to say, I suggest you go elsewhere.

Society and the Church have portrayed the image in our minds that Gay is wrong. They refuse to believe that it's natural. The Church is on it's high stool, thinking that everything it thinks is right. They refuse to accept or even listen to anything that might even contradict anything that they say. The Church and the government both believe that if we allow gay marriage then the society will crumble and the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed. Well, to late, the sanctity of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discused. They need to take off the side blinders and see what is around them, and they need to stop crying that the sky is gonna fall if we allow gay marriage.

_________________

I'll agree that Cyco's comment did nothing to advance the discussion. I'll agree that his sentiments may be misguided. But I think that suggesting that he leave the discussion is a bit harsh and doesn't do any more to foster a sense of community than his comment did.

funny, I thought most guys *liked* seeing lesbians kissing.

Saying that type a' stuff will get you banned

_________________
The Incoherology Trilogy

Check out my tale, and I promise to start posting again.

No, it probably won't, but it will annoy the mods because it doesn't contribute to the conversation. There's been a rash of spam in the R&P forums lately. Try to keep yourselves under control, folks.

_________________

Yeah, I was in a bit of a sour mood this morning, but such posts are borderline spam because they ignore virtually everything that was said before and fail to advance the discussion and are potentially inflammatory. I'm not saying cyco can't participate, but I would rather cyco not participate if cyco insists on such posts.

Most lesbians are not what you see on TV, movies, or naughty internet sites. It is by no means a sexual fantasy to see two large woman making out. I'm not discriminating, because I'd react the exact same way if it were a fat man making out with a fat woman...

Anyway, onto the topic of the talkingness!

I'm sure I can't say anything that hasn't been said already, so technically, I can't contribute to the discussion... an awkward position for me. Hmm, hows aboot this, for the 10% of people who are against gays and gay marriage, who don't use the "because the bible says so" argument, they really need to rethink themselves. The only logical argument against it, is that any two people can get married and exploit all them nice tax breaks and whatnot. Instead of having a complicated process of merging capital wealth or whatever, two business partners can just get married. How can the government ask people to prove they're in love?

_________________

I'm not an accountant, but I'm not sure that the tax breaks available to married couples are all that fantastic from a purely business perspective. But anyway, your argument can be applied just as easily to business partners of the opposite sex. Do you see a lot of such partners "eloping" to Las Vegas and getting married for business purposes? Has the IRS ever expressed any concern in this department? Um.. not that I recall. I see no reason to suspect that it would be any more of a problem with business partners of the same sex.

_________________

Well, I was playing devils advocate there. I don't think that, I was just trying to come up with any somewhat logical reason for anyone to be opposed to it...

_________________

Alabama Rep. Gerald Allen is pushing legislation that will make it illegal for state funds to spent on books and materials that contain "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". Among other things, he would make it illegal for public and university libraries to distribute gay-positive (or gay-neutral, presumably) books or videos, and for universities to stage theatre performances of the same nature.

This is censorship, folks, plain and simple. The bill is unlikely to pass, but I'm sure you'll be unsurprised to learn that Rep. Allen has close ties to Bush.

_________________

One important factor you need to keep in mind is STATE FUNDS. If I were a taxpayer in Alabama, I wouldn't want MY hard-earned tax dollars going to fund pro-gay materials.

I've had this same thought concerning the NEA funding of offensive art. It's one thing to pass laws banning certain materials, but refusing to sponsor them with public funds is a different matter. Taxpayers should not be obligated to fund materials they don't want to see. If you want those materials available, pay for them yourself. Don't take money out of my pocket to do it.

_________________

Okay, say I do. Say I buy a whole set of Queer as Folk DVDs (a great purchase, btw), and donate it to my local university library. Nobody but me paid a cent for those. I'll even toss in a few extra bucks to cover any processing the library has to do on their end. (This scenario is pretty common, btw.) In my opinion, a fairly outstanding addition to the library's resources, and it didn't cost the taxpayers a precious cent.

Too bad under this law the library would be required to "dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them."

The law doesn't just keep state money from being spent on "pro-gay" materials. It keeps the state from even making available material that even suggests that homosexuality is anything other than wrong, wrong, wrong -- even if it's been donated.

The bill includes all fiction which includes gay characters. Will NBC and Bravo be unavailable to students who get cable TV in their dorm rooms, because of Will and Grace and Queer Eye? Are there any channels on TV that universities could subscribe to that never, ever have any programming or commercials that depict homosexuals being accepted as people? Well, there's TBN and CMT, I suppose. Roll out the Emmys.

"His bill also would prohibit a teacher from handing out materials or bringing in a classroom speaker who suggested homosexuality was OK, he said." God forbid we teach our kids tolerance.

_________________

Okay, I see your point. This bill is going too far in prohibiting private funds from being used in the way you described. People should have the right to use their money to buy whichever materials they want to make available. (After all, Joe Redneck does have the right to walk into a 7-11 and buy Hustler).

But when it is my money being used, I want some say-so in how it's used. And I'd much prefer a publicly funded art museum to buy El Grecos, Monets, Salvadore Dalis, and such, not a canvas smeared with crap.

As far as pro-gay goes, I suppose I spoke too soon now that I think about it. Can a book portray a gay man as a decent human being? Sure, why not? But should publicly funded books portray the homosexual lifestyle itself as acceptible? That's where I have the problem. Unfortunately, it's often far more difficult to separate people's lifestylese from who they are.

Nevertheless, if public funds are being used to support it, then the people themselves should have some say-so in what they find acceptible for that support.

But on the topic of censorship, has anyone heard about that one church that was banned from entering the Denver Christmas parade?

_________________

But it will cost the tax payers MORE to get rid of all the materials and properly dispose of them. It's not like there is a cumulative upkeep cost for books to sit on the shelves. Also, technically, once Joe taxpayer forks over his money, it's no longer his. And it's not like there's a special tax for this kind of thing, funds for libraries and universities come from income tax or whatever.

Basically, you're trying to justify intolerance. These people hate homosexuality so much, they're willing to take great measures to block it out from their children so the only reference they have of it is their parent's blind ignorance...

This isn't banning books called "gays are great!", this is CENSORING anything that has a homosexual character, fictional or not, portrayed as anything other than a sexual deviant who god will cast into the firey pits of hell. How is that any different than when people banned music performed by blacks in the 1930-1950's?

_________________

Did you miss that point about public funds and the rights of citizens to decide where those funds go? Are you seriously proposing that we deny citizens the right to decide where their taxpayer dollars go? It's not censorship, it's plain common sense. If taxpayers don't want it, they shouldn't have to pay for it.

_________________

Not if they want to act like savages. It's not about the money, because this will end up costing the tax payers more to get rid of all that stuff. But if people really have a problem with that, they can worry about their own darn lives! If they want to raise their children as hateful mongrels, it's THEIR concern. They have no right to force their beliefs over everyone who either don't have a problem, or are being directly effected!

Anyway, me thinks these last few posts should be split into another topic. Doesn't really have anything to do with gay marriages...

_________________