Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

But they do have a right to say, "I don't want MY taxpayer dollars to fund this." That's not "forcing their beliefs" on anyone. And as far as "forcing their beliefs," isn't it "forcing beliefs" on someone if you require them to pay for materials they don't want?

_________________

Again, it's not about the money. The taxes an individual pays to fund plays and the like is minute, and the tax payer doesn't pay any measurable amount to keep a few books in a library!

And the thing is, nobody is FORCING them to read literature that says homosexuality is ok, but these people are FORCING everyone from not having access to it...

It all comes down to choice. The money is irrelevant. That's just a bullplop excuse people use to justify their irrational hatred. It's not like the governor make a special tax to build a monument to homosexuality, it's a basic fund diverted from the state or local treasury to pay for assorted things. Books in a library, beyond the initial purchase (unless donated) are a one time thing! Keeping materials within the system doesn't cost a thing!

_________________

I've already exposed the hypocracy of your argument, Dr. Zaius. You are essentially arguing that it is okay for one group to force it's beliefs on others, so long as those beliefs correspond to your own. It is true that no one is forcing people to read the material, but forcing them to pay for it is okay?

I already conceded the point to IJ that privately funded materials are just fine by me (say, in the form of donations and whatnot). But the decisions ought to belong to those required to pay for the materials.

_________________

But I've also exposed the hypocracy you expressed, being a Christian who's supposed to "love all of mankind" find it dandy for people to persecute others...

I have exposed the money argument to be a load of fertilizer. Anyone who gets flustered over it is getting flustered over a few measly dollars, or even cents, depending how much funding actually goes to non-libraries...

So far, your only argument is that hate mongers have the right to hate because many of these are publicly-funded, which I said is just a ploy. What about those tax payers who don't mind that? Why should their wished be over ridden because of the wacko Chritians and overall gay-bashers?

_________________

First of all, I ignore your charge of "hate-mongering". You have absolutely no grounds for making that charge. If we lived in Nazi Germany, you'd be justified, but not here.

As for the charge that I "find it dandy for people to persecute others..." You haven't yet proven that this is persecution. I thought we were talking about public funding of literature, not concentration camps.

Second, speaking of intolerance, you've expressed plenty of your own intolerance in other threads on this forum. A charge of intolerance from you sounds hollow to me. By intolerance, I mean specifically the fact that you've frequently judged people out of your own ignorance, particularly your ignorance of medieval history. So in my opinion, unless you've changed your perspective recently, you really don't have much right to talk about intolerance in anyone else.

And as far as I'm concerned, the money argument does still stand. If it's my money you're using, then I should have the right to decide how it's being used. You've given me no compelling reason to believe otherwise.

_________________

Really? Alabama is historically Americas most racist state...



No, not just publicly, ALL forms of literature. Read the article, they're not playing favors where the materials come from, they want to trash ALL of it...

I don't care how "hollow" I come off to you. Yes, I maybe have been wrong on the ancient history aspect, not completely anyway. I did "fill in the blanks" so to speak, but religion was still the justification factor for many of the worlds most horrible acts. But I only hate people who use an unquestionable dogma to dictate their lives and use it to dictate other people's lives.

I think I have compelling reason. The money aspect is at most frivolous! You're just being selfish! Like I already said, once you pay your taxes, IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY ANYMORE! Like I already said, THERE ISN'T ANY SPECIAL TAXES FOR THIS STUFF! This is equivalent to a vegan complaining that their tax dollars are funding meat dishes in a public school cafeteria. It's just crazy.

_________________

Now that's a compelling argument. Great jorb.


Another valid point.


That was why I agreed with IJ earlier that this law is going too far. If someone donates them, they should be kept. I think a good compromise ought to allow for current materials to be kept, but not new acquisitions to be purchased with tax funds.


I'm still not convinced you are right in making this statement, but that's for another thread.

I will clarify by pointing out that I am not anti-gay. Neither am I pro-gay. I think that that "God hates fags" attitude is sheer idiocy (and bad theology). I've said as much numerous times on this thread and others.

_________________

I'll split this topic later when I have time (do me a favor and think of a good title), but I wanted to toss something into the ring, here:

Do you think it would be okay for a state to prohibit its libraries and universities from carrying "pro-black" material, e.g. literature that suggests that it's okay to be black, or that blacks are people, too? What if the taxpayers don't like black folks or their lifestyle and don't want their hard-earned dollars going to pay for that stuff? Is that right?

_________________

Well, the "Merry Christmas" bit sounds suspiciously like quibbling over semantics to me, but I think the carol restriction is good news, considering the nature of the parade.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

So you're in favor of censorship, Upsilon? You're in favor of the suppression of ideas that don't match your own ideology?

IJ:

I see your point. But you must keep in mind that many people do not consider homosexuality to be an essential part of a person's being. Most people consider it a moral choice, and base their agreement or disagreement on that. Myself, I find it harder to make that distinction anymore. On one hand I feel it is a moral issue (ie, a choice of lifestyle), but on the other hand, I also understand that most gay people don't see it that way.

_________________

Here's another article on it. Same basic info, but what the heck...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features ... ?gusrc=rss

People like that guy make me sick. I hope someone digs a hole, and dumps HIS sorry behind in it! Gosh darn homophobes, they're no better than the KKK!

_________________

Your argument seems to be "because a lot of people are prejudiced, we should make it okay to marginalize the people they're prejudiced against." Millions of people also consider blacks to be lesser people. Perhaps as many believe all Jews are the enemy of God and America and should be killed. Should we make sure they're allowed to write their beliefs into law?

If you lived in Alabama and a white-power or anti-Semitic amendment to the state constitution was passed by a majority vote of the people there, would you support it? Would you say, "Well, if it's what so many people believe, I guess it's okay with me"?

"Because a lot of people feel that way" is not, and has never been, a justification for bigotry.



I don't believe that "most people consider it a moral choice". I don't know any statistics any better than you do, but anybody who has actually asked a homosexual person if their lifestyle is a choice (and has the decency to believe that the effective 100% of gays who say it isn't aren't lying -- to us or themselves -- for some secret motive) knows otherwise. A lot of bigoted people sleep better at night because they're able to tell themselves (or find others, e.g. radio personalities, presidents, and clergy, to tell them) "Oh, those gays are just saying they're gay. There's really no such thing as homosexuality. It's unnatural. They just like being socially ostracized deviants. They think it's cool."

I have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that people as bigoted as Rep. Allen are out there making public policy, but that doesn't mean I lie to myself about it just so I can feel better about my worldview.

_________________

You spent an aweful lot of effort in this reply putting words in my mouth and making assumption, IJ.


I think I said something very similar to that, if you had paid attention.

I still think that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and spiritually unhealthy. Trying to equate it with a race or gender issue doesn't convince me otherwise. But I also recognize that most gay people don't feel like it has anything to do with choice at all. The ones I've met mostly feel like they are just different in that regard.

_________________

what people do in there own time is none of our business.

_________________

Thank you, StrongZysk, but you might want to consider giving us some reasons for saying that. The fact is I wish it were that simple. As a professional care provider, I have discovered that very much of what people do in their own time ends up becoming my business, one way or another (and not because I'm trying to make it my business, either). What people do with their time does have an effect on the way they relate to other people, and my job involves a great deal of human relations.

On the other hand, I will agree with you on this: the government is not qualified or epuipped to govern people's sex lives. And it shouldn't try to, outside of trying to protect victims of sex crimes.

BTW, I love your avatar. Nicholas D. Wolfwood, the fallen priest who finds redemption.

_________________

[quote="OneUglyBird"]The bible says you ought not lay with another man!!![/quote] I'll second that!! First of all, the founding fathers, upon writing the declaration of independence did not put "you can't sleep with another man" because... Hmmm I dunno maybe 'cause they were so much a purer country back then that they didn't even THINK ABOUT IT!!!! In fact, I don't have a problem with men wearing pink or whatnot that's considered "gay", it's what they friggin' DO that's the problem!! I mean it's outright digusting, and it's also pretty darn obvious that we were meant to have a man/woman relationship by just looking at our biology! And as wierd as it sounds, I can almost 1% understand about the whole "they're not harming anyone" thing, it's just that this nation was founded as a distinctly Christian nation, and it seems most of us "patriots" (take much notice of the quotation marks) don't wanna honor that, we just take our freedom for granted and live sick lives and destroy our bodys with drugs, homosexuality, drunkenness, harlotry, etc.. for fun. I guess people just don't realize what they are actually doing when they become desparate or addicted. As a closing note to an exruciatingly long post, I'd like to just say that these people need help!! And hopefully they will realize it before it's too late.

People like you, doodyman, are exactly what's wrong with America...

The fact that you're comparing homosexuality to drug abuse is appalling. Believe it or not, but homosexuality doesn't make you a pervert. Now there are perverts who are homosexual, but that's just the minority. Just like heteros, perversion is relative. So a man who likes to kiss another man cannot compare to a 5-way sex orgy composed of 2 foot long dildos and electric probes...

Yes, America was founded by Christians, whoopy. America was also founded on the notion that slavery was A-OK. So, if you hold the framers of the US Constitution to such a high regard, do you think women voters, free blacks, and non-religious people are so icky bad as well?

As for your "biological" argument, you'd be right, if people only had sex for reproductive purposes. Sex isn't all about reproduction, so unless you think pre-marital sex should be punished by death (like it was in olden times) you should shut your mouth. Sex is about expressing love, it's an intimate expression of effection. It doesn't necessarily have to involve penis into vagina. And before you say "it's un natural", why don't you watch the Discovery channel sometime? Homosexuality in the animal kindgdom isn't so uncommon. And recreational sex is also a trait found in nature. Dolphins, for example, engage in fun sex quite often...

So, in my closing statement, you can take your bigoted views and shove it! Gays don't need any "saving", except of course saving from persecution from people like you. With much of the "patriots" of this country who unfortunately think the same way as you, it's no wonder the rest of the world hates us...

_________________

Um, I didn't say that everything America does is great and dandy and awsome like you assumed about womens rights and blacks etc... I will be honest in saying I did not read all of the previous posts, I was simply going off previous notions of people who say that other people who are against gays are "unconstitutional." as for the things you nearly accused me of supporting (basically slavery) I do not support them. And what's with the "how dare you compare homosexuality to drugs" thing? I think you are just thinking drugs are worse 'cause it's so much more obvious what they do to you, and that there's an actual campaign against them. As for the whole "Your argument would be valid if sex was merely for reproduction" argument, I understand that sex is an act of love and intamacy designed by our loving creator specifically to be between a man and a woman. That's the point I was trying to make with the whole thing about looking at our biology, God created man and woman like this so they could have a loving relationship and raise children, sounds better than sleeping with another guy just for the thrill or as you call it "intamacy." *shudder* So ok, since you're comparing man to animals, I'll ask you this: Is it ok for a human to go around (NAKED) sniffing other peoples croch areas and pooping in the house and "mating" with anyone he pleases? After all if it's perfectly normal in the animal kingdom it must be fine for us humans!! Actually that sounds so fun I think I'll just do it right now!!! Well se ya later, I'm gonna get naked and dig holes in
the ground with my bare hands, ooh ooh!! Then I can crawl on all fours and make loud obnoxious noises (ok maybe I'm taking it a little too far, but you get the point right?)
Oh yeah, I don't think pre-marital sex should be punished by death so calm down!!(if it was I'd have a dead cousin and a very very sad aunt) I also don't think that non-religious people are "so icky bad" I just think that life is pointless and miserable without God (Y'know, the real one, the trinity with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.)

Congratulations, you just contradicted your last post in this thread...

You praise the founding fathers by saying "they didn't say anything about it because they KNEW it was wrong", but you don't back up any of the other discrimination they had? Seems kind of like you're cherry picking there, only taking what seems good to you, but ignoring the rest...

There you went again, saying homosexuality is as bad as drug abuse. Which is completely false. No, a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman is nothing like shooting a heaping spoon full of heroin into your arm. Unless, of course, you buy into that hogwash that doing so condemns your immortal soul. In which case, you can't be cherry picking from the holy scriptures like that. You either go in it all the way, or go to Hell...

Your animal "argument" was just ridiculous. If you aren't going to be serious, please don't bother debating... unless you were trying to be serious, in which case I exercise the right to point and laugh at you. No, god didn't give us anything. Even if there was intelligent design (IE, some deity starting the big bang) there is no way that deity would pay exclusive attention to every detail over every little thing in the universe. That's just craziness. To use your own religious rhetoric against you (again) I'll say this: if god only meant sex to be between a man and woman, he/she/it wouldn't have made it feel good any other way...

And shows what you know about Atheists, we get by just fine in life. We may not live in some fantasy dream world like you Christians, but I guess it's true what they say, ignorance is bliss...

_________________

Doodyman, don't take this the wrong way - I'm sure you're probably a nice guy and stuff - but reading your posts nearly made me retch. Especially your sign-off note about how pointless and miserable life is without God. Well, I'm sure you'd know all about that. Funny thing, actually: before I read your post, I wasn't at all aware that my life was pointless and miserable, so thanks for setting me right on that gaffe.

Oh, and what's this I can almost 1% understand about the whole "they're not harming anyone" thing? Who do you think they're harming?

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Dr. Zaius (or whatever) I'm gonna leave now 'cause this is totally pointless and I'm not really changing anything in that stubborn mind of yours. As for you you can keep living your ignorant life until maybe somebody better at debating than me comes along and convinces you that your views are wack.. FARWELL!

Ok, bye? You really didn't have to post this, you could have pm'ed him. Oh, and don't debunk someones beliefs just because they differ from yours. If they're different, then say why and what you think, don't just say that the other person's beliefs are wrong and that they are stupid for believing in them.

_________________

I've already met somebody here that's already better at debating that you. Didymus, he one-uped me once, but that doesn't mean he made me change my point of view. Nobody will ever do that, short of god him/her/it's self coming down and smacking my upside the head. But that's about as likely as say, everyone on Earth getting super powers...

_________________

Thanks, Dr. Zaius.

Doodyman, you really didn't introduce any new information into the debate. And even I myself question the wisdom of debating this particular topic at all. As a theologian, I feel it is my responsibility to address particular philosophical and moral issues.

Here's our dilemma: on one hand, Scripture teaches the unconditional love of God for all human beings. On the other hand, it also calls us to live according to a moral standard. So, as Christ's body, we are called both to show people unconditional love, and yet uphold that moral standard.

But here's the tension: it seems that, at least in regard to this particular sin, you cannot uphold the moral standard without alienating people, and alienating them is no way to show the love of God. Unfortunately, any attempt to do so ends up making God's love seem conditional (i.e., "you can't receive it until you get your life straightened out--literally").

A lot of gay people (at least the ones I've talked to) already feel alienated. And it hurts me to add to that alienation, even to the point that often times I don't even really want to talk about the subject. And I know what alienation feels like--the utter disconnection and despair, like there's no one in the world who cares about you. Yeah, I've been down that road before, and I don't wish it on anyone.

This past summer, I served as chaplain out at the Jefferson Barracks VA Hospital, working mostly with drug addicts. At one point, I suffered a breakdown (all part of the training, and quite necessary), and I experienced unconditional love from the CPE group, AND TWO OF THEM ARE GAY. For that reason, I feel obligated to share the UNCONDITIONAL love of God with gay people, even if I disagree with their lifestyles. Unfortunately, in my current position, I don't have many opportunities to do that.

Now I know I've done some pretty intense arguing on this thread. As a theologian, I feel I must inject a biblical perspective into this. If I have done so in an inappropriate way, it is because I have forgotten that this, to me, is not a purely political issue, but one of pastoral care. I keep forgetting that I cannot effect change by arguing, but only by listening and caring (of course, this is hard to do on a text-based forum over the internet). I will say this, though. If Jesus was here in 21st century America, he'd probably eat with gay people and drug addicts.

I'll add more to this after I've had some more time to reflect.

_________________

Marraige has been up to now a common law matter, not one of statute or constitutional law. Go back to 1896, when Congress refused to allow Utah statehood until the Mormon Church officially ended polygamy. This was well within the rights of the government.

Yeah, I had a professor who liked to point out that if Jesus were here now, he wouldn't be in church with us, (not all the time, anyway) he'd be at the Planet (the skeeviest club in town) saving souls!

_________________

Well, it isn't forcing beliefs. We're saying it should be illegal. That's NOT forcing anyone to "believe" in any Christian teaching, nor are we forcing them to be straight.

If anything, the world is forcing secularism on Christians, and we're fighting it. Po-tay-to po-tah-to.

And it's not a "right to privacy" issue", either, incidentally, because it's not private. The glorification of homosexuality is being forced down our throats, so it's not privacy, either.

Besides, marriage isn't some "unalienable right", or anything. It's a privelege, like getting a driver's license. It's not a guaranteed right. There are requirements. Legal requirements, and social requirements, like finding a mate.

It's also not prejudice to vote against gay marriage. If you disagree, let me know and I'll prove you wrong.

And it's not the same thing as the library example either. We're not saying you can't be a homo or can't say it's ok. We're just saying that you can't profane the things we hold sacred. That's the real issue, not censorship or fear of differences.

_________________
I am the Chupacabra. I like to suck on goats.




... their blood.

And you say that you're not prejudiced... Okay, first of all, this is a privacy issue since, well, in order for this to be enforced, police agents are going to have to monitor marriages around the country, and then burst in to stop them if they happen to be with a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Second, what is this "forcing down our throats" thing about? Homosexual protesters aren't in the streets, making us get to work late; they aren't forcing us to watch news channel specials on gay marriage; in fact, there is NOTHING that is being "forced", except the loss of freedom for people who some people think are below us, and don't need these certain freedoms.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

Saying something should be illegal seems forceful to me. To push this idea to its literal extreme, making something illegal is being threatening. The threat here is to use force if the law is disobeyed. This is generally how laws are enforced when saying, "Hey, don't do that!" doesn't work.



The United States is a secular nation. (If we were to discuss another country things might be more difficult; from here on I will assume that we are discussing the U.S.)



Allowing gay marriage (or, for that matter, the issue with the library) is not glorification. Moreover I think any invasion of privacy you might incur by making it legal is far outweighed by the invasion of privacy that would occur by making it illegal.



This does nothing to suggest the requirements are any good. This same "argument" could be used to maintain a ban on, say, interracial marriage (if there were one; just being hypothetical here).



Again this is meaningless until you decide to actually try and prove it.



Saying "be a homo" in a casual and not obviously ironic manner shows definite prejudice.



"Profaning" things that are held "sacred" is not the issue here. Marriage, to the government, is secular, not spiritual. Moreover the government is not allowed to sanction any religious ideas; "separation of church and state". Therefore, the idea that this has anything to do with anything "sacred" falls entirely apart, because we are talking about whether or not the government should allow it, and the government cannot take into account any idea of "sacredness".

Do you mean "secularism" as in "secular holiday" (i.e., with no religious bias) or as in "secular humanist" (i.e., with no religion)? Either way, I'm interested to know how you think this is happening. This is someone whose national anthem is "God Save the Queen" asking someone who lives in "one nation, under God".

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song