Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I hear you. Sorry, I must have just misunderstood you.

_________________

I didn't notice this part of you're post before, P-man, and I have to say that it is possibly one of the most moving things I've every heard. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic here, that's a wonderful notion. "God did make Adam and Steve." Wow...

_________________

Forgive me, but isn't your country meant to have separation of church and state? Because when you take God out of the equation, all you are left with is bigotry.

Your particular church doesn't have to agree to allow the ceremony in their churches. But there are always civil ceremonies.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

The truth is that being against gay marraige is just like being for segregation; it's politically incorect, bias, and wrong. People shouldn't be allowed to be against same-sex marraige any more than slavery.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Although I agree with you, Ricksea, your comparison is a bit skewed. Slavery involved not only biases, but also torture and forced labor. Does anyone force homosexuals to do labor, does anyone phsyically torture them? No. Disallowing homosexuals to get married is horrible, biased and unconstitutional. But it's not as bad as slavery.

_________________

I guess "gay-bashing" isn't a problem where you live. Not that allowing them to marry would solve that problem.

_________________

Nope, not a problem in upper-middle class suburbual Westchester.

_________________

Well, I'm glad for you, Evin. Unfortunately, other parts of the world aren't that tolerant.
Not to say it's a problem here in Canada, either, but from what I understand, isolated incidents still take place all over North America. It's sad.

_________________

It is sad. I recently saw a play called "The Laramie Project" about a homosexual man in Laramie, Wymoming who was bound, tortured and killed. Horrible things happen even in the "safest" of countries.

_________________

Absolutely, they should be able to. Ask me to rant about it later.

_________________
How about some Pan-Asian cuisine?

Please rant now. You've got me interested.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

But then doesn't that make you just as bigoted as them? Are you actually proposing that we should start a "Thought Police" to enforce your opinions on this topic?

_________________

Speaking on behalf of Ricksea, I think you'll get the general feeling of the post better if you omit the words "allowed to be".

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

Let me rephrase my point: you can think or say whatever you want. You can think or say that God controls the world, or that people should always wear blue jumpsuits, or even something as internationaly disagreed as "child pornography is virtuous". So, you can think and say that all black people should be in prison, but is that statement going to be widely accepted? No. What I'm saing is that anti-homophobism is still socially accepted, when really it's just as politically incorrect.

This sickens me. Anti-homophobism should be treated just as racism.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

I just want to make sure I know what you mean, Ricksea. I think you mean that homophobia should be treated like racism. "Anti-homophobism" would mean being against homophobes, right? So being against people who are against gay people? That sounds like a good thing to me.
Methinks you got a little confused with all the anti-this and that.
I just wanted to clarify your post so people don't think you're a homophobic homosexual. That'd be a bad situation to be in.

But I hear you, Ricksea. I have a few gay friends, guys and girls, and I support their lifestyles completely. It makes me sick to know there are people out there who would hate them so much just because of who they're in love with.

_________________

I'm sorry for reviving this topic, and I hope this is the right topic, but I have been wondering about something. Some people say that homosexuality is genetic, but if there is a "gay gene", where would it come from. You obviously wouldn't get it from your parents because if they were gay, they wouldn't have any kids to pass the gene on to. And if someone somehow "mutated" the gene, they wouldn't have any kids to pass it on to either.

There was some study that showed that certain scents are connected to peoples sexuality, so it probably is just a random thing connected to chromsones or something.

_________________

Right. Also, just because you're homosexual doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to reproduce with someone of the opposite sex. Consider a homosexual couple that wishes to have a baby via artificial insemination: it's possible that whatever genetic lineage that would determine the sexual proclivity of a child (assuming that lineage is there), would be passed on from the gay mother to the child.

*is a bio major*

By no means do I consider myself an expert on genetics, so correct me if I'm wrong, but said gene COULD be passed from your parents if it were a recessive gene. I don't know about the ides of genetic sexuality, though..

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

I know that they would be able to, but I didn't think that it was very likely.


People do that nowadays, but back in the days of the first homosexuals, they would not have had that technology (as far as I know).

Well, if homosexuality is at all genetic, then it would have extended far beyond the days when we were aware of sperm, egg, or even had a name for homosexuality (or a language at all. )

Still, a homosexual man can have sex with a woman (or vice-versa) and produce a baby, and pass on the (theoretical) homosexual genes.

OK, I'm not against same-sex marriage. And I'm not for it, either. But hey, different strokes for different folks.

No, I'm not a Christian. There's just too much scientific evidence against it. But I still celebrate Christmas....... because I'm a hypocrite. (Hooray for trying to make something totally unfunny funny!)

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

You're not a hypocrite for not being christian but celebrating Christmas.. Christmas isn't a Christian holiday anymore, anyway...

As for scientific evidence against same sex marriage, I've never seen any. Haven't looked though. Since marriage is a social invention and isn't a "real" thing, I don't know that it really matters if people marry each other or not.

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

I think Einoo meant that there was too much scientific evidence against Christianity.

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

Well, I don't think the Bible or the spirit of Christianity is really supposed to be viewed in the same way as the scientific method. Science and religion provide two different concepts of truth, which are not necessairly mutally exclusive to one another.

What seems most ridiculous to me is the idea of being against this because of the 'sanctity of marriage'. Yeah, the same sanctity that causes half of all marriages to end in divorce, right? Try as I might, I still haven't heard a truly compelling argument for why same sex marriages should be outlawed that isn't rooted in the uncomfortable prejudice of others or the religious aspect of it that I don't even want to go into, because everyone has different beliefs on that front, and thinking about it in depth gives me a headache. Admittedly, I haven't read this entire thread, though - I've only skimmed a good bit of it. I just think making these people go through even more social challenges than they have to, especially when there other far more relevant problems to be dealt with around us, seems incredibly stupid.

Also, on my personal end, while I may not feel the specific social complications that come with being homosexual, I can completely relate to any groups of people who have certain unusual behaviours most others in society can't comprehend themselves. My severe picky eating disorder fits into this - believe it or not, to those who have this problem, it's not exactly as simple as 'try it, you'll like it'. Much like it's not as simple as 'you're automatically supposed to fall in love with the opposite sex'.

Well, I'll try to play Devil's Advocate here and present one.

Marriage is a cornerstone of our society. Marriage is the representation of a family and the primary means of which we first learn about social interaction, and how to integrate ourselves and become a part of the world around us.

Homosexual marriage would not be able to accomplish this because it is such a radical deviation from the norm of society, and therefore, a homosexual couple may not be able to raise a child in an enviornment that would help them integrate into society.

Of course, there's lots of problems with that argument, too. It has about as much merit as (and is analogous to) an argument against interracial marriage. It's bull.

Marriage's role in society is decreasing in importance, and there's no real proof that a homosexual couple wouldn't be able to raise a child any better/worse than heterosexual couples.

oh, ok.. That makes more sense.

EGG, you hit the nail on the head when you talked about sanctity of marriage. It's so true. It really makes me laugh when people who have been divorced 2 or 3 times talk about how gay marriage will devalue marriage.

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

I think gays can do wat they want as long as it doesn't concern me im ok with it

_________________

The thing to keep in mind when talking about same-sex marriage, is if you don't draw a line somewhere, we be having this same conversation in 10 or 20 years debating whether or not bigomy or polygamy should be allowed, or insest relationships. I mean think about it. Who are you to say that multiple people can't be in love with each other, and can't provide a wonderful upbringing to their children? A line needs to be drawn somewhere. imo, we should keep it where it is.

_________________