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

Always! Hey, you still cruising? How's that holding out for ya? I think premise 2 is false: If homos are allowed to get married, then they can get on their spouse's health insurance. The amount of people covered by health inssurance affects the cost of health insurance for everybody*. Ergo, the denial of marriage affects the lives of more than just those who want to get married. Therefore your conclusion is false.*whether this is better or worse is beside the point Not necessarily (as exposed above). For example (made up), a person who hates the sin, but not the sinner, could also really want to keep thier health insurance costs up, so they might vote against homo marriage for that reason. This wouldn't necessitate that they hate the sinner.Generally though, I think hard-core conservatives are against any kind of change whatsoever. I don't see a vote against homo marriage, as an attempt against any change at all, as necessarily being hate against the persons.It might very well be in some cases, but not necessarily, and your deduction isn't sound.

And my point was that the denial of marriage affects more than just those who wanted to get married. If everything effects society, then denying marriage does too. Its not that it stops us from doing it, its that stopping or slowing change, of any kind, is a reason to deny marriage that doesn't involve hating the sinner. And I showed that wasn't true. Because heteros can already get married. There's no change there. Allowing gay marriage would be a change.

Irrelevant. It makes the assumption that lower healthcare costs would be the result. The made-up person wants to keep the higher cost so he votes against the marriage to maintain that because allowing it would lower the cost. You're argument is just plain wrong and shows just how blinded you'll allow yourself to be by your desire to vilify those who are different than you... bigotry in its own right.

I didn't mean to imply that we couldn't determine if the effect would be positive or negative, just that it didn't matter to the point.I'd say that the result would be positive based on the assumption that the more people that are insured, the less the cost is to everybody... but I could be wrong.

You got any evidence for that assertion?The more people who are insured, the less it costs for everyone.Is that not true?

quote:

---

Your argument is very flawed and shows the logical gymnastics that those who want to be bigots are willing to go to justify and rationalize their behaviours.

---

It was in a reply to me. I was. But I still don't see anything about them that justifies your vilification. I haven't said that, no. Of course they could. I'm providing an argument against a position. Are you not familiar with debating!?What's with all your vitriol?

Oh, I see what you're saying.But still, keeping things the same is what has happened as a result of the vote against it. That is a valid reason for the vote that doesn't include hating the sinner. A lack of change was maintained, that's what happened.Granted, this wasn't what I was originally thinking, and I clearly see what I was missing you saying before. So I think you're right one the one part, as far as who is really affected or not, but you're still wrong that voting against it necessitates hate against the sinner. Actually, its the opposite. They're wanting to maintain the higher price so they vote against the homo marriage because that would lower it So... I still win

No, you're not!What is your position and how is it against mine?All you're doing is trying to find flaws in my argument. That is not taking a position nor providing an argument.You haven't provided anything at all that is useful in a debate. No, this is the vitriol:

quote:

---

Alright, if you want to defend mindless bigotry I guess that is your right.

---

quote:

---

You really need to keep your personal feelings about me(yet you don't even know me) out of the debate. But that will never happen will it.

---

quote:

---

Your argument is very flawed and shows the logical gymnastics that those who want to be bigots are willing to go to justify and rationalize their behaviours.

---

They work for an insurance company. Its in tough times... Obviously.Oni's claim was that a vote against gay marriage necessitates hating the sinner. I am taking the position against that and provided an argument for why it isn't true, along with an example. Its called a debate.I'm not really sure what you are doing in this thread... I think I'm going to call it: "being a little bitch".

Wrong, I'm getting along with oni just fine. No, I haven't. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. It was just a part of a refutation of an absolute statement. He said "ONLY", I provided an exception. Well if you bothered to read what I write, you would've seen that I expounded my claim to a general point. But sense its apparent that you're not interested in debated, I'll just ignore you now.

I think you're missing something. Oni claimed that any vote against homo marriage would be hating the sinner. My general point is this:

quote:

---

Generally though, I think hard-core conservatives are against any kind of change whatsoever. I don't see a vote against homo marriage, as an attempt against any change at all, as necessarily being hate against the persons.

---

Whether or not their marriage changes is beside the point. One of the changes for heteros would be lower health insurance costs, because more people would be insured (yes, a good change, but a change nonetheless). Further, there are over 1000 laws that mention the word "marriage" in them. To say, out of incredulity, that there would be no effect on heteros, not stricly just their marriages, is naive. As oni said: everything affects society.People fighting change, by voting against homo marriage, is not necessary hating the sinner.

Right, its possible for people to vote against gay marriage without hating the sinner.So on to my general point: Conservative who are simply against any change at all, and vote against gay marriage, are not hating the sinnner either.I thought of another one...Some of the conservative think that anything comming from the left is going to be bad for them so they oppose everything that the left has to offer. If they voted against gay marriage for that reason then they wouldn't be hating the sinner either.I think it exposes an irrationality on the left's part when they argue that anyone who doesn't agree with them about a particular issue must have hate towards the group that would be benefiting from the issue. If you don't support gay marriage, then you hate gay people.Nigga pleese!Now, I realize you're talking about people who against it, and I agree that it is taking it a step further, but I still don't think it means that you hate teh gayz.

That's just stupid!Do you really think the line "whether this is better or worse is beside the point" is saying that there is no way to know if it'd be better or worse!? Really? That car is fast, whether it is red or not is beside the point. You just admitted that you cannot determine the color of the car.What. The. Fuck. Please, just read my posts. Message 18

quote:

---

I didn't mean to imply that we couldn't determine if the effect would be positive or negative, just that it didn't matter to the point.

​

I'd say that the result would be positive based on the assumption that the more people that are insured, the less the cost is to everybody... but I could be wrong.

---

Message 20 <-- one...

quote:

---

The more people who are insured, the less it costs for everyone.

​

Is that not true?

---

Ugh, forget about the health insurance part. If was just a made up example to illustrate the broader point. I don't think that's correct. My Message 73 explains some exceptions:

quote:

---

Right, its possible for people to vote against gay marriage without hating the sinner.

​

So on to my general point: Conservative who are simply against any change at all, and vote against gay marriage, are not hating the sinnner either.

​

I thought of another one...

​

Some of the conservative think that anything comming from the left is going to be bad for them so they oppose everything that the left has to offer. If they voted against gay marriage for that reason then they wouldn't be hating the sinner either.

---

So there you go. That's my position: Voting against gay marriage is not necessarily hate against the sinner like the OP claims.

So you've totally avoided my actual position in this debate and are continuing to harp on a made-up example He ain't a little bitch...Besides, I did reply to him in Message 73 and am awaiting a reply.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Non sequitor. My general points stand alone, without any real life examples:Conservatives who are simply against any change at all, and vote against gay marriage for that reason, are not hating the sinnner.Conservatives who vote against anything that comes from the left, and vote against gay marriage for that reason, are not hating the sinner. Dicks fuck pussies.