|
Author
|
Topic: Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 15 of 391 (596697)
12-16-2010 3:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by Taq
12-16-2010 2:09 PM
|
|
Taq writes: They think homosexuality is icky and gross. It makes them very uncomfortable. They think it is sinful. Therefore, homosexuals should not get married.
Of course, a lot of people who are in favour of allowing same-sex marriage also think homosexuality is icky and gross and it makes them uncomfortable too. But they draw the line at their own feelings and don't try to impose them on others. It becomes "hating the sinner" when you try to do something that effects the sinner's life.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Taq, posted 12-16-2010 2:09 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Please explain
Catholic Scientists writes: Conservative who are simply against any change at all, and vote against gay marriage, are not hating the sinnner either.
Conservatives aren't so brain-dead that they'll vote against something just because it's "change". They have a tendency to want to keep things the way they are but they still have individual reasons for what they support and oppose. So your conclusion doesn't follow.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 90 of 391 (596915)
12-17-2010 8:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by Theodoric
12-17-2010 8:31 PM
|
|
Re: No one can give a reason
Theodoric writes: I thought we were well passed the time when people called homosexuals perverts.
What I find bizarre is that the same acts are often not considered perverse when performed by people of opposite sexes. If it was really the "perverse act" that bothered people like iano, they'd be pushing to ban the act itself, not limit the freedom of certain people who perform the act. The opposition is clearly aimed at the people themselves, not at some supposed principle.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2010 8:31 PM | | Theodoric has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by Panda, posted 12-18-2010 6:35 AM | | ringo has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 100 of 391 (596943)
12-18-2010 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by iano
12-18-2010 7:03 AM
|
|
Re: No one can give a reason
iano writes: Your worldview doesn't recognise God's order for things. My worldview does and so I can legitimately use the language he use.
The question in this thread isn't whether or not you can use certain language. It's whether or not that language is hateful. It seems clear that a worldview which promotes hateful language can also promote hateful acts - e.g. voting. You're just trying to legitimize the acts by redefining the language.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by iano, posted 12-18-2010 7:03 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by iano, posted 12-18-2010 6:35 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 109 of 391 (596989)
12-18-2010 9:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by iano
12-18-2010 6:35 PM
|
|
Re: No one can give a reason
iano writes: It's not (necessarily) hateful to consider (and refer to) something as perverse.
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!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by iano, posted 12-18-2010 6:35 PM | | iano has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 127 of 391 (597026)
12-19-2010 12:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by ICdesign
12-18-2010 11:56 PM
|
|
Re: The Golden Rule
ICDESIGN writes: The Golden rule isn't a blank check to twist into whatever you desire just because it seems OK to you.
Where are the loopholes? Where does it say to be nice to only the people you approve of? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't want them voting against your marriage, don't vote against theirs. That's pretty straight-forward and it takes a pretty perverse mind to argue against it.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by ICdesign, posted 12-18-2010 11:56 PM | | ICdesign has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 164 of 391 (597099)
12-19-2010 5:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by ICdesign
12-19-2010 4:21 PM
|
|
Re: Before you rest your case ...
ICDESIGN writes: We live in a democracy where we have the right to vote for what we think is good and right.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't want them to vote against your marriage, don't vote against theirs. Democracy is not an excuse for violating the Golden Rule.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 162 by ICdesign, posted 12-19-2010 4:21 PM | | ICdesign has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 167 by subbie, posted 12-20-2010 12:17 AM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 215 by ICdesign, posted 12-20-2010 8:23 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 174 of 391 (597202)
12-20-2010 11:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 173 by iano
12-20-2010 11:05 AM
|
|
iano writes: 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.
I've replied to that point twice already and that "someone else" hasn't responded: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't want them to vote against your marriage, don't vote against theirs. Sin is not involved.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 173 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 11:05 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 177 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 1:05 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 179 of 391 (597231)
12-20-2010 1:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by iano
12-20-2010 1:05 PM
|
|
iano writes: I don't mind if they vote against my marriage. Can we consider that particular point now answered?
Nope. We're talking about a situation where your vote can have a real effect, where your marriage would be null and void if the measure passed. Would you really "not mind" if your relationship was branded as perverse? Would you really not mind if you had to refer to your wife ambiguously as "my partner" to avoid repurcussions? The spirit of "do unto others" requires you to take into account the cummulative result of your vote and the very real detrimental effects on the victims of that vote. I don't think your cavalier handwaving even begins to address the issue.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 1:05 PM | | iano has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Please explain
Catholic Scientist writes: I've just been arguing that it doesn't have to be hate against the sinner like the OP claims.
Is that what the OP claims? You and iano have been playing the "not necessarily" card: "It walks like a duck and talks like a duck but it isn't (necessarily) a duck. It might be an eagle masquerading as a duck." What the OP means, I think, is that it probably is a duck. As Jesus said, by their quacks ye shall know them. By their votes ye shall know whom they love and whom they hate.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 223 of 391 (597332)
12-20-2010 9:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by ICdesign
12-20-2010 8:23 PM
|
|
Re: Before you rest your case ...
ICDESIGN writes: Do you think Jesus was worried about the Golden Rule when he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves in Matthew 21:12?
Of course He was. If He did something wrong, He would have wanted to be corrected.
ICDESIGN writes: If a group of people decide they are offended with marriage between a man and a women they have every right to voice their view against it.
I've never said otherwise. The question here isn't whether or not you have a right to do it but whether you do it out of hate. If you violate the Golden rule to do it, you're probably doing it out of hate. The Golden Rule is a rule of thumb to help you keep from sinning. If you don't want them to vote against your marriage, don't vote against theirs.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by ICdesign, posted 12-20-2010 8:23 PM | | ICdesign has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 230 of 391 (597345)
12-20-2010 11:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 224 by ICdesign
12-20-2010 9:55 PM
|
|
Re: Before you rest your case ...
ICDESIGN writes: So you think Jesus would want to be corrected in this fashion "IF" he were in need of correction then?
Of course He would. What kind of example would He be if He didn't follow His own rules?
ICDESIGN writes: That's right, all of you have been judgmentally accusing me of hate when I never once made a hateful comment. I have clearly stated over and over I DO NOT HATE THEM.
If you don't want them to vote against your marriage, don't vote against theirs. Taking something away from somebody else that you want for yourself is a hateful action. By their fruits ye shall know them.
ICDESIGN writes: Disagreeing with an issue does not mean you hate the person.
But voting for a hateful action does mean you hate the person.
ICDESIGN writes: Would you want someone to vote against you or the idea you are promoting? No you wouldn't.
That's what I've been trying to tell you. You wouldn't want somebody to vote against your marriage, so don't vote against theirs.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 224 by ICdesign, posted 12-20-2010 9:55 PM | | ICdesign has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Good of the Many or Individual Hatred
purpledawn writes: When a Christian votes against gay marriage, is it driven by hatred of the individuals or the perceived sin?
I don't think it is about the motivation. Good motives can produce hateful acts. Motivation to "protect" society, whether from gays or blacks, can produce hateful results, like banning same-sex or mixed-race marriage. By their fruit ye shall know them even if their seeds aren't easily recognizable.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 268 of 391 (597408)
12-21-2010 10:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 266 by ICdesign
12-21-2010 10:07 AM
|
|
Re: Before you rest your case ...
ICDESIGN writes: You would rather look like a bag of hammers than admit your wrong wouldn't you ringo?
 I don't rely too much on ratings but I think it's pretty clear what you and I "look like" to the other members.
ICDESIGN writes: ... I welcome them to vote against my marriage if they are against it because I acknowledge their right to participate in our Democracy.
But are you being honest? If there was a vote and your marriage actually did lose its recognition by society, would that be AOK with you?
ICDESIGN writes: And further more I wouldn't accuse them of hating me if they did vote against it.
It isn't about accusations of hatred; it's about hatred. As I've asked others before: Which is worse, being called a bigot or being a bigot?
ICDESIGN writes: Do you ever vote ringo? If you do I have to assume that you always do so out of hate.
We don't have referenda in Canada. Emotional voting is one of the things that makes them a bad idea.
ICDESIGN writes: You and your buddies on this site think from a foundation of hate and that's why you assume everyone else does the same.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Trying to deprive your neighbours of something that you have is not a way of loving your neighbour. It's a hateful act. Nobody on this site is trying to deprive you of anything. We're just trying to get you to think about how hateful your actions are.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 266 by ICdesign, posted 12-21-2010 10:07 AM | | ICdesign has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Good of the Many or Individual Hatred
purpledawn writes: So when the Christian is voting in such a way to prevent what some view as sin, they aren't hating the person supposedly.
When a hateful act is being committed, it's possible that one person might not be aware of hating the other person but I'm still going with "by their fruits ye shall know them". Hatred is as hatred does.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
™ Version 4.2