Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?

I thinks God's desire would be best. But I accept that many won't agree and I've no problem with their attempting to shape society in the way that they see fit. It makes sense that society be shaped by the will of the people in it.- I don't think it's prejudice to restrain the degree to which sin is permitted to exert influence in the society in which I live. But if you don't believe in sin ...There isn't really much point going round the houses Taq. There are two irreconcilable worldviews behind our positions and there's little point in trading arguments based on those. The issue is "hating the person or hating the sin".If you can see/accept that my position focus' on that which the sinner carries with them into society and not on the sinner themselves then enough will have been said. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That is one prong. Another is to prevent the normalisation of that which is considered perverse in the first place.

Whatever your worldview concludes is the case. In my case the reference is "What God says". Your worldview will conclude otherwise no doubt.I would have thought that obvious.

Of course you can't. Your worldview doesn't recognise God's order for things. My worldview does and so I can legitimately use the language he use. I don't mean to inflame but were I to use the word 'sinful' you couldn't even begin to understand my position.You don't see the normalisation of homosexual behaviour as damaging to society because you don't see it as perverse. If I were to insert some behaviour which you did find perverse, in the place of homosexual behaviour, then you wouldn't be asking what harm it would do society. And you, with your promotion of gay marriage trying to impose your worldview on the rest of us.*rolleyes*

It's not (necessarily) hateful to consider (and refer to) something as perverse. You know that - yet bother to post all the same.?

A few points.1) The shape society takes is determined by the complex interactions of the individuals that make up that society. In so far as a particular worldview (on say the issue of same-sex marriage) combines influence to have their view hold sway, that view will hold sway. It is not true to say that my view can in no way be made "to confirm to all". It can - just as the worldview which seeks to display soft porn on the shelves of newsagents - in full view of children - has managed to have it's view hold sway.2) Your worldview would happily discriminate on the basis of an activity being harmful to someone. My worldview would discriminate on the basis of an activity being sinful. Sin mightn't produce harm in the same, directly correlating and obvious way that harmful activity might. That doesn't mean I should do nothing in the face of advancing sin. In my worldview, God isn't just the God of believers...It might be helpful if we return to the issue at hand, the topic of the thread. There's no point in going around the worldview houses - ne'er shall that twain meet.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Are you trying to tell me that the only motivation I should have for attempting to shape society a particular way is for the direct effect it might have on me. You mean to say that if I had no kids I shouldn't give a fig about the sexualisation of kids. Myopic.. I have the right to attempt to ensure society takes the shape I want it to take, for the reasons I want it to take that shape. Just as homosexuals have the right to do as they attempt to do.I've already pointed out that there's a difference between wanting a theocracy and objecting to the direction soceity is taking on certain things. I'll repeat it for your benefit.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You seem to be saying that unless I'm directly and personally affected by homosexual marriage then I should leave well alone. Am I to assume that you're gay andl desiring to marry at this very moment. Because if not..I don't hate gays. You conflate a desire to shape society in the way I see best - with hatred for those who wouldn't want it shaped that way.

Because:a) there are sufficient numbers of folk who've lost sight of the topic and headed down the worldview vs. worldview dead end (incl. me)b) because our only other intercourse managed to chart a tidy course until called, ironically, off-topic...I'll point you back to the topic at hand - you could do worse than begin at my first response at Message 5. Take note of the sample, off the top-of-my-head reason given for my opposition to gay marriage. It might help keep the focus on the actual topic, not on my justifcation for the reason I hold as I do.

I'm not suggesting that a prohibition on homosexual marriage would be beneficial to homosexuals."Rights" is a sticky wicket. Ultimately they are decided upon by society and if society doesn't grant them in the first place then they aren't being trampled over. The ball can be kicked back to an interpretation of your constitution or mine but nothing really changes since it was society that established that constitution and any rights conferred by it. If society wants to change a constitution (and so the rights conferred by it) then society can do that.The issue in topic (in case you're unaware) is whether my acting to shape society as I see best is necessarily hating of homosexuals. I can't see how that charge can be made stick..- The "underlying motivation" and the "means whereby object is achieved" are clearly different horses. The latter does have to utilise available society-shaping tools.

Your moral imperative is one founded on godlessness. It's a pretty good moral imperative for all that - were there not a godly one to consider it would strike me as about the best imperative that mankind could assemble for himself. But in the face of a godly moral imperative - where what is moral is defined so as to find homosexual marriage sinful - your appeal to fair play falls flat.The prime concern according to the godly imperative isn't man-defined equality, the prime concern is holiness. And if there are consequences for society at large (godly and no) due to sin - then I've no issue with working towards the prevention of same both for my own benefit and the benefit of others who might not be aware.- The above might help clarify the position. You don't have to be a believer to see the basic layout:1) The normalisation of homosexual behaviour is believed to bring about a negative outcome for society at large.2) It is reasonable to take steps to prevent such an outcome, both for personal benefit and for altruistic reasons.3) The fact that some will pay a price for this is weighed up against the benefits. The price is considered worth paying.Leaving red herrings such as "it's not you paying the price" aside and resisting the urge to assert an alternative worldview "fairer" based (cicularily) on an argument which supposes fairer best-of-all, what is your objection(s) to the basic argument.

Show me in anything, other than in your atheistic, materialistic, rationalistic worldview that homosexuality is normal.When the discussion retreats to the point where this worldview is asserted better than that worldview then stalemate has been reached. Stalemate renders the OP's assertion undemonstrable.Game over?

Are you not describing humans produced by "your atheistic, materialistic, rationalistic worldview". A worldview specifically excluded in my question.The point was to illustrate that "normality" is invariably the product of worldview. And that your OP essentially rests on the assertion "my worldview is correct". But if holding another worldview - which sees homosexuality abnormal - then there is a sound basis for opposing homosexual marriage which isn't based on a hatred of the person themselves. I can simply see the sense in resisting abnormal behaviour being normalised.The notion of 'hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't necessarily insulted

If like me, you interpret the Bible to condemn homosexual behaviour, how would you reconcile your interpretation of the verses you list with an approach that would, in supporting homosexual marriage, propagate sin throughout society.If you don't interpret the Bible to condemn homosexual behaviour then we'd have veered away from the topic into "my interpretation vs. your interpretation".- The Bible is pretty much silent on the issue of politics this way or that. I don't recall that to be the ministry of Jesus. His greated/least in the kingdom of God was addressed to Christians - not the population at large.Blessed are the poor in spirit (a spiritual thing) - not the poor in finance (a worldly thing).Jesus didn't come to condemn sinners. But neither did he come to condone. God hates sin - even if, in his mercy, he suspends the time when his wrath shall fall in order that some shall be saved.- Again, I don't for a moment take this to refer to worldy underdogs. It's the spiritually meek, impoverished and lowly that will inherit the earth - whether they are financially impoverished and downtrodden ... or powerful multi-billionaires.- I take it that you don't agree the Bible condemns homosexual activity.- Which is besides the point. The point is the OP and whether hatred of homosexuals is the inevitable motivation behind the move to prevent homosexual marriage. I am arguing not.

Iirc, someone else has pointed out to you that the Golden Rule isn't to applied so blindly that sin is advanced in the world.