If you’re in or near Bloomington, Indiana, you can come find me today at Vintage Phoenix Comic Books from 5-7pm! I’ll have Dumbing of Age books!
This strip originally had a different punchline and a different Joyce expression to go with it. Here it is on Tumblr. The expression, that is. The punchline was too clunky and awkward and refused to make the transition from my brain to words, hence the change.
Loading ...
Paster? Not pastor?
he did her wallpaper
I think I’ve read too much Mike-related comments in the last months. I didn’t understand did as “doing something” but “doing mothers for nickles”.
Verdammt, nun bin ich auch noch Webcomic-geschädigt.
Ja, aber das macht es Spaß
If you don’t mind some friendly criticism, I would remove the “es” from the sentence or switch it with “das” and remove the latter. Currently, it doesn’t make much sense. 😉
Pastor sounds like a transformer.
Or tasty, tasty pork products in a burrito.
mmmm el pastor
Said Transformer’s joints are lubricated with pastor oil, of course.
He’s very adhesive.
No Pasta silly.
He hopes so, because that caramel boy is now running through his mind …
So he desires to wrap his lips around a Walky bar?
Ethan is a cannibal?! Run Joyce! Run for your LIFE!!!
Ethan is a cannibal for man meat so Joyce would be safe. 😀
Not if my theory about the global feminist conspiracy is right!
Just saying, that gravatar makes that comment even funnier XD Elan is hilarious.
Butt Tacos…
AAARRRRGGGHHHH! Now I have to go on a TV Tropes dive to get that mental image out of my head.
-spit take- OxO HAHAHA!!! Image almost creeped me out until I realized how funny that sounded. I’m trying to hold it at bay now XD
Like right now Joyce desires some cake but in an hour it could be tacos.
…and not just any kind of tacos, they have to be butt-tacos.
I choose Pikachu… FOREVER!!!
At some point, in every young boy and girl’s life, there comes a time when you’ve gotta catch a Zapdos and move on.
What was the original punchline?
If it could exist in written form, it would have been the final punchline. 🙂
So the punchline is there, it’s just that we cannot perceive it?
You cannot grasp the punchline’s true form!
It’s essentially Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. We know the exact position of the punchline (the last panel), so we cannot know which direction the joke was going to take (it could have been a joke about penises, or butts).
Haha I get it because electrons
You can’t handle the punchline!
And there it is.
It was the Killing Joke. Joyce goes on a rampage, leaving nothing but a field of corpses with triangle smiles in her wake.
One person say two words of the punchline and was put in a coma for two weeks.
say=saw
Not sure if Monty Python reference…
It is. Probably, anyways.
Yup.
From that expression, something along the lines of “You do realise she chooses to desire Walky?” from Ethan.
Well it definitely wasn’t this:
http://branthequixotic.tumblr.com/post/32924580189/the-original-cut-punchline-from-todays-dumbing-of
That would be the best and worst way for Ethan to come out to Joyce.
In my head, Joyce’s face is the same as my “FUUUU” face, so that was actually something along the lines of which my “alternate punchline” went.
Dorothy is walking away a lot more amicably than I expected her to.
Anyone who gets to share a bed with a caramel-chiseled body is going to be amicable.
Willis is doing a good job of portraying real-life arguments between people of good nature. Not like an Internet argument, where everyone becomes a greater asshole.
Until they start accusing everyone with an opposing viewpoint of being Nazi sympathizers.
You know who else accused people of association with malevolent, destructive groups…?
Many people along history. It’s actually quite common. 😛
Dot is redeemed.
Aw, you cut off the toned, shirtless frat boy walking by. Damn pan & scan.
yet another comic that made me cringe
Did we skip a comic? o.O I figured that argument would have continued in some capacity.
Sounds like a very Christian sentiment to me: We were evil before Jesus saved us, so now we have to fight our evil urges. Because humans are by default bad, and thus all of the human desires are bad.
not saying some are or aren’t but the idea that a desire is by default evil doesn’t seem to quite fit to me.
I don’t know about whether it’s a default Christian thing, but it is a default Catholic thing – original sin, and all that.
Actually, the Catholic position is that humans 1-were good before original sin, 2-are made good again by Baptism, and 3-stay good if they stay away from naughtiness. Basically, any believer who leads a semi-decent life and repents his sins can count on being saved. It’s *Protestants* -some of them, at any rate- who believe that humans are by and large a degenerate lot and only a few of them have what it takes to hit the jackpot. You know, the whole faith vs deeds thing.
Where I come from the phrase is “Beware the Natural Man”.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/natural-man?lang=eng
So we can throw a Mormon stick in with the lot.
My first thought was that it was a Jedi sentiment, how desire can cloud judgement.
I didn’t know Smith was a Jedi name…
Lucky for Joyce, she can choose to want to marry whatever desirable male may be in her immediate proximity.
Awwwwwkwaaaaaaaard…
Oh, poor Ethan. . .
The desire for caramel will never fade!!
Perfect Gravatar for that!
“Oh, and I’m gay.”
“We’ll have so much to talk about!”
“Let’s stay up late in our jammies eat icecream and talk about boys!”
“Not that gay.”
Just the butt and oral. You know, the basics.
The fundamentals are important.
Nobody else mentioned Ethan’s Hitler stache in panel 1?
It’s a nazi fire alarm.
Yeah… this is going to end in tears…
Indeed it will. I can smell it.
What’s it smell like to you? I think it smells like Popcorn and M&Ms.
Oooooooh noooooooo.
Ethan, no, don’t get all reparative therapy on us. Your gayness is as much a universal constant as Mike’s arseholeishness!
Aaaaaand I’m a clinically depressed drug addict.
Less fond of this avatar than my previous ones.
Nurse, we need a wicked awesome gay dude for Ethan to love on, stat! Hurry, before it’s too late!
Anything to avoid the impending trainwreck.
So you can choose to be miserable by forcing yourself into thinking you love someone? That sounds like a pretty crappy view of relationships.
I mean, I know that any relationship worth its while takes hard work and compromise, but there should be some sort of mutual desire to build up from. Be a Lizzie, Joyce, not a Charlotte!
I agree. I’d say there needs to be a solid foundation of mutual respect and affection or all the love in the world won’t make it a happy relationship, but you can’t fake desire either. You can choose to act or not on said desire, but I don’t think one can just say, “Hey, I think I’ll decide to fall in love with that person. Don’t really desire them, but hey, they seem like a good person, so it’s fine.” That is SO not fair to the other person nor, ultimately, to yourself, either.
Desire isn’t inately bad. Just acting inappropriately on it.
And isn’t Joyce pretty much admitting that she’s “choosing” to feel the way she does about Ethan, rather than just liking him because she does? Which means she’s consciously choosing to act pretty obnoxiously around him, what with grabbing his hand and giggling maniacally about it, or forcefully draping his arm around herself. If she’s “choosing” to act this way instead of just being completely clueless, that makes her actions that much worse, in my book.
That’s not it at all, actually. She’s not saying desire is bad. She’s saying letting it control you is. And I have to agree. Nothing is wrong with desire, unless you let it rule you. In this case, Joyce is mostly referring to the idea of giving in to sexual desire. Where the problem comes is that her saying don’t base your love on desire can be interpreted as ‘Don’t allow desire at all’ which isn’t what she’s saying. She’s saying that desiring shouldn’t be the number on priority in choosing.
A good way to put this is an example. I meet a girl who’s really bloody hot and I want to be with her. So, I do this and follow my desire and let it be the base. Now, as it turns out, we don’t get along at all, and rationally, I can see this will never work. But since I’m letting my desire run me, I just keep it up, living off my desire. What Joyce is saying would be I notice we don’t get along and ignore my desire in move on. Later, I meet another girl who I desire, but before jumping into things, I analyze the situation and go ‘Things could work’ and then go for it. My choice has now been the basis for the relationship while still allowing my desire to have some sway without being the controlling force.
tl;dr Desire is okay, just don’t let it be the ruling force.
So she likes Ethan and wants a boyfriend and is acting like it. It’s clumsy, but I don’t see anything wrong with it.
That is she’s coming on rather hard and clumsily, but I find it kinda charming actually.
Hate to break it to you, Joyce, but your pastor is so full of shit it’s hard to believe.
His statement could be interpreted in a lot of ways, not as stomping out desire. Your statement on the other hand…
I don’t understand the “punchline” AT ALL. He seems to be agreeing that he chose to be gay because he desires men. He may be a confused college kid, but I don’t see anything particularly funny in their exchange.
I saw it as more that he hopes Joyce’s desire for him is transient. I might be wrong.
Who said it was joke or a punchline? It’s not a gag a day strip.
But rejecting your instincts (including desire) can make you just as miserable.
And that thing her pastor said is fundamentally wrong. Choices are informed and logical things that are supposed to make sense. Love is not logical. Either you love someone or you don’t. You can’t reason or argue yourself into loving someone. And most importantly you actually have control over your choices. You can’t control love.
“Love is not logical.”
“You can’t control love.”
That is so full of crap. There are reasons behind love, otherwise it’s not actually love.
Love can largely be explained scientifically, just like everything else.
On a personal note, I do relate to Joyce a little. I grew up Catholic, which wasn’t nearly as “Fundamentalisty” as Joyce’s background, but throughout high school I was very “no sex before marriage” at least for myself … although I don’t think I ever pushed my beliefs on my classmates. The closest I came was a speech presentation arguing for abstinence … although it was more “Hey, maybe don’t have sex in high school because being a teen parent sucks and also still know how to put on a condom just in case.” But now that I’m getting into my late 20s, I’ve been looking back at me from 10 years ago and realize just how different my viewpoints are on this stuff.
Oh, and when I moved this summer I found my old “purity pledge” card I got during a health class. I actually posted a picture of it on twitter and just laughed at it. Oh high school me, you are ADORABLE.
Argh.
Frustrating though it may be that Joyce once again fails to be called on her awful behavior from earlier…I’m more concerned about the utter trainwreck that Joythan is shaping up to be.
The amusing thing to me about this strip is Joyce has just pinned Dorothy down perfectly. The only misinterpretation is which desires are driving Dotty to ruin.
Not shown onscreen: the attractive guy off to Ethan’s left.
I’m with Joyce through where she says you should keep control over your desires. The point where she clarifies that into her pastor saying that love shouldn’t be based on your feelings, she enters full-of-shit land. Desire (depending on definition) is a largely biological response, but love is an emotional response. If you are choosing which emotions to have you are actually suppressing them and are emotionally dead inside, and the emotions that you ‘choose’ for yourself are simulated and flimsy in their fakeness. Which is not good, incidentally.
It’s good to acknowledge and make conscious decisions about your biological urges, but it’s terrible to deny emotions. IMHO.
And Ethan makes me sad, by reminding me that we have an entire culture that encourages an entire slice of itself to reject themselves.
And here are the safety kids with the other side of the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AIDnfhsLDA
Both Sides!
When you see an ‘X’, it means poison! So remember kids, don’t follow treasure maps, don’t play xylophones, and if you read or watch anything related to those superheroes, the X-Men, you will be poisoned and die!
*twitch*
But only on the inside Begbert, only on the inside.
I don’t think Joyce, joyful Joyce, would ever say “you should fake all your emotions and be an emotionless robot at your core blip blip bloop bloop.” What she’s talking about is really asking yourself “how will I feel about this in ten years?” And, by itself, that’s a question worth asking. I even think this belief has done her some good… can you imagine what she’d be like if she slept with people as easily as she labeled them “probable future husbands?”
The problem is that she’s still way too sheltered to really understand other people and their priorities, so any wisdom she does have only applies to the few personalities she understands. But we all knew that.
The weird thing is, though she just *did* say that you should suborn love (not lust, not carnal desire, but love) to cold, calculative decision making. Blip blip bloop bloop.
Why did she say this? Why use the specific emotion-related word? Who can say. If we take her at her word she’s quoting her pastor, who could have meant any number of things. He could have been talking about making love – as in, the physical act of sex, and this could just be an unfortunate meaning-changing paraphrase. Or he could have actually meant that you need to curtail your emotions if you don’t calculate the subject of them to be worthy of you. I have in fact heard this sentiment stated: religious practice has a good chance of suffering if you marry outside the sect, so limiting who you will feel affection for serves the aim of preserving the religion. (Or cult…since this is a rather cultish approach.)
Joyce is hardly an emotionaless person, you’re interpreting her statement wrong.
She does need more experience with relationships though to understand desire is important.
Says the guy who killed QuiltBag!!
Wow. Looks like he’s genuinely trying to marry himself straight. Didn’t work for Tchaikovsky, I can tell you.
Just reading some of the comments throughout this string. I see a lot of people disagreeing that loving someone is a choice.
Love is like any other emotion. It comes and goes. You don’t fall in love with someone, get married or move in together, and SUSTAIN the feelings of love through your entire marriage or partnership. At some point you have to make a choice to stick with them and trust that the feelings of love will come back around. Or you leave/get a divorce, which is what half the population decides to do because they never grasped that love is a choice in addition to the feelings.
I dispute that love is a choice, since you cannot change it directly. It’s not immune to external influences, though; you can certainly adjust your attentions and environments to fuel or starve the flames of your passion. Or try to, anyway; my heart still pangs for a girl who has held herself just beyond my reach for close to twenty years now, and who will stay that way indefinitely, and the feelings persist despite a few periods of no-contact for years at a time. Trust me, this is not something I’d choose.
And getting a divorce has nothing to do with whether you think love is a choice or not. Mistaking lust for love, on the other hand, is probably a significant contributor.
Well, there’s definitely a difference between being in love with someone and loving someone. I’ve never stopped loving my wife, nor she me, but there have been times we’ve not been “in love” for sure. That’s cyclical.
Who you love is a choice? What a convenient being-gay-is-bad-and-it’s-your-fault argument.
I take it to mean not who you love, but how or why you love someone. Desire isn’t bad, it just needs to be tempered by rational thought.
If anyone says they truly and completely know why they love someone, they’re probably lying. Rational thought is afterthought that makes your desire fit into a socially acceptable frame of reference. It doesn’t temper natural desire, it’s usually just used to justify it.
Oh, and as for the “how,” you love someone, I would list various sexual methods as well as the various emotional abuse or support techniques people use but apparently they would ban this comment for it.
Honestly, Joyce is shaping up to be the most interesting character in the story for me. She’s not a cardboard cutout of a religious bigot or naive harmless church girl–sometimes her assertions are harmful and sometimes they are positive. Within the same conversation she said something pretty insightful and something kind of awful, and she has no idea which is which. I don’t know, I think it’s really refreshing to see this sort of portrayal.
This.
You know, what I find frightening is how close, yet how far Joyce’s pastor is here. Sure, its more than Desire. And it does involve a choice, but not the way Joyce or the pastor seem to mean it.
Yeah, I’m with you. There’s an element of truth to this, but it’s still just slightly off. It’s more that desires need to be explored before you act on them….because just impulsively running with what feels good can destroy you in the long run….
But also, you can’t make something like love into an intellecual exercise. It doesn’t work.
Yeah, I’m with you. There’s an element of truth to this, but it’s still just slightly off. It’s more that desires need to be explored before you act on them….because just impulsively running with what feels good can destroy you in the long run….
But also, you can’t make something like love into an intellectual exercise. It doesn’t work.
*Sigh* And I double posted. Very intellectual, me.
Joyce is REALLY starting to bug me now. She’s ferociously judgmental despite seemingly being a nice, caring individual. I’m not disagreeing with the general consensus that she’s well-written, but god she is so….. Ugh!
That is what is so beautiful about it, in one way, this is really right.
Love should not be the quick, wanton desire and nothing more. It requires some choice in a way of actions and what you do, choosing how to nurture it, heat of passion does not make long lasting fires.
Yet she doesnt necassarily mean it or think of it like that, she is going on a different way.
But almost , you can see where she may start taking it that way.
She is so right, and so wrong
Okay, just what is Ethan watching walk by on this page?
Dick!
Dick on a DoA comments section!
Why is it that people keep interpreting choice=/= emotion? One can make an emotional choice to live the rest of your life with someone based on the fact that they make you happy. I’ve seen people date people whom they admitted had very little physical desire for at all, but enjoyed being together with, and decided they worked and connected with each other based on an emotional choice. Love isn’t logical, but neither is it all physical or chemical.
Is it really that hard to believe that Ethan could never fall in love with Joyce just because she doesn’t turn him on? He is gay. That is never going to change. But some people don’t think with their dicks. Some people, like Ethan, seek companionship, or starting a natural family. Do you honestly think no gay guy thinks along those lines?
Here’s a hint. If he didn’t think along those lines at all, then why would he complain about LOSING HIS GIRLFRIEND!?
Joyce is still obviously wrong for judging them for the way they handle their relationship and deem it ‘falling into desire.’ That’s bullshit. But most of the people hating on Joyce are arguing against her for all the wrong reasons.
I would honestly like to see how a really good author like Willis would spin this relationship actually trying to work, and I’m hoping that Ethan’s last line is foreshadowing to that. Cause the more obvious end to this, a bad breakup and Joyce contemplating it forever until there just friends, is a bit….overdone? I don’t know if that’s the word I’m looking, but between Its Walky and Dumbing of Age, Joyce’s boyfriend experiments always ending badly gets sort of tiring.
Nobody is saying you can’t make choices based on emotions; we’re saying that you don’t get to choose what your emotions are. There is no switch you can flip to suddenly be in love with someone or not be in love with someone, no more than you have a happy/sad switch or an angry/calm switch.
You can certainly make choices that fly in the face of your emotions (and carnal desires); people do so all the time. Though getting into a relationship with somebody you don’t lust while you lust after others is rather risky. And doing it while knowingly hiding the situation from your significant other is DUMB.
No one is questioning Ethan keeping it a secret is dumb. Did I ever say otherwise? As for the risky aspect, all relationships are risky. But if two people truly connect, and your not phopic to your significant other’s sex, it may work out. The contraversy of whether this will end in obvious tradegy or not is based upon the fact that young Ethan and Joyce are the exact type of people who desire this kind of non-lust based relationship. So many people on this site are so physicallly based pathetic, the idea of being in love with some one they are not attracted to they write off as ‘miserable’.
How narrow minded can one be? Never mind, I retract that question. Christian-hating has become one of the biggest narrow-minded black holes in recent debate history, especially with the gay issue. More people then you think shy away from the Joyce absolutes of ‘If you don’t go to church every Sunday, its a mortal sin’ and default to the Shortpacked Robin idea of christianity ‘If your not an immoral asshole, your pretty much going to purgatory or heaven’.
All belief systems or non belief systems, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc… they have their large mass of moderates and their more vocal completionists, which are the only only ones who seem to want to enforce their views.
I’m a devout Catholic, and I groan whenever some priestly asshole on the internet criticizes a person saying how the other person will go to hell for this minor thing they believe, while they say they will laugh at them in heaven.
To be fair, begbert never actually bashed Christianity in the post you’re responding to.
Other than that, the majority of readers are coming from the angle that Ethan won’t be able to be in a satisfying relationship if he can’t have sex with the other party. I am of the opinion that for long-lasting, overall happy relationships, a balance between physical and emotional needs must be struck. It obviously varies from couple to couple, but going to an emotional extreme the way you’re proposing, I think, will result in a break up in much the same fashion as going to a physical extreme will.
…Then again, I’m just a snot-nosed kid. What do I know?
You’re about two days late for the vociferous religious debate – maybe next time?
Young Ethan and Joyce are NOT the exact type of people who desire this kind of non-lust based relationship. Specifically, Joyce is almost certainly the sort of person who will want lots of sex and babies – just, after marriage. So she’s going to see him being gay as a MAJOR problem. (Well, aside the the fact her religion already tells her that.)
So yeah. This relationship is DOOMED. She’s here for her MS. degree, remember?
First, fuck your usage of “natural family”. A natural family is not based on sexual preference. Your version of a “natural family” is based heavily on your upbringing and how you view your own culture. So you think a natural family is a man and woman with children–well it isn’t.
In many different parts of the world, the “natural family” includes all types of people, within and without blood ties. In America, we have the family unit, which can be two parents or one, and gender doesn’t matter.
Also, I don’t think you understand. Imagine society had this huge pressure on you to be gay. Your parents are gay, your friends are gay, and people who aren’t gay are made fun of and lack basic human rights in your culture. Suddenly you think, “Well, I could try to fall in love with someone of the same sex…” and then you do it!
Good for you, you have successively fallen in love with another human being. This person is your best friend. You two have so much fun together! Oh wait. They want to kiss you. This makes you nauseous. You try it and HATE IT. This person who you love so much–you realize you can’t be intimate with.
That is what separates a ‘normal’ best friend from a life-long companion. This does not mean people “think with their dicks,” it means people get to enjoy making love AND hanging out with their best friend.
Long lasting, healthy relationship includes sex. I can only assume that you have never been in a serious relationship. Anyone over the age of 20 should really not be confused about the relationship between sex and love.
“Long lasting, healthy relationship includes sex. ”
can include sex, but theres asexuals in this world too, as well as people who are (for various reasons) physically not able too do it.
You cant define it as a requirement.
I think it’s just silly that you’d even need an excuse.
Well yeah, that’s the give in.
When I meant natural family, I meant actual progeny. I didn’t mean it in the emotional sense.
Also, Willis will ban your comment for using the word ‘fuck you.’ Grow up little child.
Technically, Welp said “fuck your usage”, not “fuck you”. Also, I doubt Willis will remove his/her comment. I:
Personally I see ‘natural family’ as ‘female kills and eats the male’. If it’s natural enough for praying mantises, it’s natural enough for me.
This is a few days late, but it is best not to use terms that separate
alternative families from traditional ones in a way that makes them
look unnatural. That is one of the many methods the far right fringe
uses against LGBT people, so it’s a loaded phrase.
Wow way to munch up the formatting there computer
Exactly, you could use nuclear, traditional or even biological instead of natural, that word is pretty loaded.
I think considering ‘natural’ to be better is loaded. Artificial families and such can be just as good and even better.
It may be perceived more or used more offensively than nuclear, traditional or biological family, but it’s definitelly the natural default for humans to breed with two genders.
and to raise them together.
Details vary, especially as to family-generation size, but the male-female mix covers the vast majority of these core social units.
But natural isn’t necessarily good despite its tendency to work. Engineered families will probably work better.
Again, the only prerequisite for the way I defined ‘normal family’ is wanting to have progeny. This is an actual thing for gay people as well as straight. I have no discrimination between any lifestyle between consensual adults, whether they be considered by some to be normal or alternative.
In fact I myself, as a devout Catholic and republican conservative, raise my eyebrows at the ancient Catholic views upon gay marriage.
For one thing, do we Christians have the ownership of domestic partnership? Why do the Christians get the most hate over the gay marrige issue? Do American Jews have Christian weddings? Pretty sure they don’t that often.
And more importantly, the issue is contradictory. The Bible loosely mentions that homosexuality is a sin, yet one of the main tenants of Christianity is that God created us to be who we are, and to not live a lie. Wouldn’t the more dominant tenant override the other as inconsequensial, especially if the more dominant one means being a less of an asshole to people like Ethan?
On the other hand, you can’t really blame the Church’s that much. The question that always hangs over their heads are when deciding on something so important is ‘where do we draw the line?’ Thats NEVER an easy answer.
Good points, ‘cept your word-meaning rage… by natural family he obviously means biological offspring with the partner and you should be secure enough about your identity not to flip out.
Remember, Chatterton, choices can be forever, but desires are transcendent, hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Aren’t all choices based on desire, though?
I know, it’s meant to be a roundabout way of saying that if you’re only with someone because you want to jump into bed with them, that’s not likely to be a lasting relationship.
I figured it was sortof like when you’re changing up how you’re trying to eat and your coworker brings in doughnuts for everyone. You have some choices to make between being healthy, maybe making that doughnut your one cheat day, holding off for something you want more, or abstaining from the desire all together to be more committed to your health. The RIGHT decision for each person will vary but it should be made as much in a vacuum from your present desires as possible, otherwise you can just fall back into the bad habits you might have had before.
i.e. look at the long game and not the short term when making decisions that can effect you later. Probably a good rule in everything. ESPECIALLY finances, which might actually a better example here…
That boy needs some counseling. He’s gotta talk to a professional or something cause he seems ready to make some very unhealthy choices. Both for himself and Joyce.
yeah, I agree
Maybe he should just see Joyce on the side? 😛
WAITWAITWAIT. If being gay is a “choice” (I know, just go with it here) and choices are permanent, then what the hell is gay conversion therapy for (Joyce seems like she supports it).
She said choices can be permanent, not that they are. You’re allowed to change your mind, but you can also choose stick to your guns, theoretically indefinitely. So, while there are other things Joyce has said that are dumb and damning, this bit isn’t one of them.
Also, I hesitate to assume that she thinks being gay is a choice. Yes, she’s doubtless been told that, but Joyce seems pretty liberated on the gay issue for a fundy so I hesitate to presume her beliefs in this area.
My guess is, she sees it as a case of, if you’re making a choice that God disapproves of, it’s because He’s not in your life, and so that’s not a choice you’re likely to walk back unless you later accept Him. At which point, guilt gnaws at you and you try to walk back your sin. So in that case, the choice isn’t necessarily permanent, but it CAN be.
On the other hand, if you’re right with God, the choices you make are, presumably, seen through the lens of following God’s will. In which case, those choices ARE permanent, because once you’ve begun following God’s will, why would you undo a choice you’ve made with His blessing?
She knows that Dorothy is an atheist, and so she worries about the permanence there. It’s willful disobedience to God, and someone who doesn’t believe in God isn’t likely to change those decisions to conform to His will without coming to God herself.
Ethan’s homosexuality, on the other hand, she may see as redeemable.
And I’ve put way too much thought into this.
Aww, I’m caught up now.
And I still don’t know who my gravatar is.
URL is “avmandy.png”.
http://www.dumbingofage.com/tag/mandy/
She wants to keep her femurs. (She’s _waaaay_ in the background of the other comic)
I think God/Godess has to much to do that is far more interesting in worrying who sleeps with who: but probably have a great deal of fun watching mortals waste sooo much time on trivialities such as, who sleeps with who and why they did it and when.
And what business is it of Joyce’s anyway 🙂
If you believe in a literal heaven and hell – heaven being a wonderful place where good people go forever, and hell being a place of eternal torment where bad people go forever – and also believe that some actions will put a person at risk of going to hell, that creates a situation (according to your beliefs) where you could easily see it as your responsibility to at least say something to that person, especially if they’re your friend. I mean, you wouldn’t want your friends to burn forever in continuous torment, would you?
That is the most convincing and logically sound argument for anti-homosexuality I’ve yet to see. That isn’t saying much, but still.