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

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.

Message 5 does not describe what harm is done to society.You have spent far more time avoiding describing the harm caused by gay marriage than it would have taken to describe it.
I'll let everyone form their own opinion as to why that would be.

Not (necessarily). What a powerful argument.Slavery isn't (necessarily) a bad thing. Women don't (necessarily) mind being raped. Drugs aren't (necessarily) harmful.It's probably possible to beat a gay man to death without hating him - but you'd have a hard time convincing most people that you didn't. Hateful actions don't (necessarily) indicate hate - but they usually do.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Not at all. Of course you should consider the effect it has on other people. That's part of living in a society.Consider this: one of the foremost principals of Christianity (borrowed from countless other earlier religions) is the Golden Rule. Surely, if you are to love the sinner but hate the sin (the actual topic of the thread), following the Golden Rule would be one way to effectively accomplish that task. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Quite simple, really. So, I ask you this question: would you want others to prohibit you from marrying the person you love? Assuming your answer is no, by what right, consistent with the Golden Rule, do you presume to tell others whom they may marry?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Excuse me there Oni but just because I use my freedom to vote against a behavior that I find offensive does not mean I hate the person committing that behavior any more than I would hate my child for committing an act I felt worthy of a spanking.In my opinion the hypocrisy is in you telling me I don't have a right to stand against a behavior
I disagree with. Hey, if two guys want to blow each other in the privacy of their own wherever and use their outies as innies, that is their choice. I don't hate a person who engages in this behavior.
Just because I vote against calling it normal behavior doesn't mean I am against the person. Its against the behavior and that is a huge difference.With your way of thinking you are saying the behavior IS the person so I am hating the person.
Well you are absolutely wrong on both accounts. I don't hate the person and the behavior is not the person.I disagree with the idea that a society should put their stamp of approval on a perverted lifestyle and calling it OK and normal in the name of being politically correct.Try running down the street with no clothes on and see how far you get. What's wrong with that? Why don't you have the right to do that? Because a society with morals made a law against it, because it is offensive to decent people, that's why!IC

Of course, that has nothing to do with the topic.No one is telling you that you must consider same sex marriage as right, or normal, or approved. The only behavior under discussion is getting married. What married people do is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they can marry.If YOUR chapter of Club Christian does not approve of homosexual behavior, then don't behave that way.If YOUR chapter of Club Christian does not approve of same sex marriages, then don't perform same sex marriages.BUT in the US, your religious prejudices count for nothing.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'll ask you the same question I asked iano.Consider this: one of the foremost principals of Christianity (borrowed from countless other earlier religions) is the Golden Rule. Surely, if you are to love the sinner but hate the sin (the actual topic of the thread), following the Golden Rule would be one way to effectively accomplish that task. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Quite simple, really. So, I ask you this question: would you want others to prohibit you from marrying the person you love? Assuming your answer is no, by what right, consistent with the Golden Rule, do you presume to tell others whom they may marry?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

That is a good question that I would be glad to answer for you subbie.Our society determined back before all this PC crap started up that it was normal and decent that marriage should be between a man and a woman. If gay people want to be in love and live together that is a choice they have a right to make. To rewrite the law and change what we as a society declare to be normal and OK is an entirely different issue.If I am in love with my dog and live with it as a spouse that may be my right but I don't have a right to ask society to call it normal and give me a thumbs up.I say we have already drawn the line in the sand about what is normal and decent and there is no need to change it.Ic

Then why didn't you?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Right, like when we held the line against interracial marriage.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

And no one has said you cannot do that or that anyone else should deem it as normal.But that is also irrelevant to the discussion.If and when that topic comes up we can see what the law says.But now we are talking about same sex marriage and you and your doggie are irrelvant.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Show me where in anything, other than your book of myths, that homosexuality is perverted.Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Do you think they asked gay people when they "determined" that?How about when society "determined" that Africans should be chattel slaves? Doesn't that indicate that maybe the people of "society" making these "determinations" may not have known what would turn out to be best for everybody? You may not feel any need, but you're not a gay person who wants to marry their partner, now are you?

I think I did answer the question subbie.I think same sex relationships are unnatural and wrong on many levels. I believed this long before I became a Christian. If people want to engage this behavior they have a right in this country to engage. I disagree with society giving this behavior a thumbs up and sanctioning this type of a union as normal. Its not a matter of marriage benefits to me. Its a matter of calling wrong right. I have a right to express my opinion about this issue as does everyone else.I am a man. If I loved another man I would not expect expect society to change the law to accommodate my unusual desires.The Golden rule isn't a blank check to twist into whatever you desire just because it seems OK to you. Its referring to being kind to others. Its not a license for anything goes.IC