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

I'm not sure that this follows. The nature of society is a function of the types of family units that go into making it up so it's not true to say that homosexuals marrying only affects homosexuals.If someone is of the view that homosexual marriage is detrimental to society (they may, for example, consider Gods judgement to be attracted so..) then their efforts to deny homosexuals access to marriage wouldn't be based on condemnation of the homosexual population itself.

Rather than get into a willy-waving contest on this, I held things at the suggestion that it would - on the self-evident basis that the sort of family unit society consists of will influence the nature of that society.I wouldn't expect that homosexual marriage in itself would produce seismic shift - change comes about in small, relatively insignificant steps.- The Prohibition experience is a demonstration of the futility of forcing people to do something they don't want to do. There is a difference between that and supporting that which you find beneficial. If Society found that male/female + 2.1 kids was optimal then they should, naturally, encourage that (say by tax breaks) and discourage other unions.- I think you are entitled to work towards shaping society in the way that pleases you. If that includes campaigning for homosexual marriage then so be it. If contra then so be it also.I can't think of any legitimate reason why you should be prevented from doing that (other than through others exercising that same entitlement.I'd imagine the dominant view (or amalgamation of various views) will reign.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

An example was given but you apparently didn't want to deal with it

I'm at a loss to see how. You'd need to be comparing God to some external-to-God standard in order to suppose him a bigot contrary to his say so.No prizes for guessing who's the 'external standard' by which God is found to be bigotted(hint: there's whisky in it )

That's one view.. A shift in the nature of society can occur through monumental movement. Or it can occur in minute, step-wise fashion. Whilst agreeing that homosexual marriage in itself wouldn't result in monumental shift, it would be another step in the dissolution of male/female + joined for life idea of marriage.And if that is considered an important ideal by some then makes sense that they should work towards retaining that structure.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I've absolutely no doubt that this will be the case in many cases. I'd warrant this especially so in the U.S. - where Christianity appears to be bent on achieving a level of theocracy.There is a line between wanting to shape society in the way that you feel is best for all and wanting to impose your views in dictatorial fashion on everyone. It's not that fine a line in my view.- Societies task isn't to micro-manage everybody. It's job is to encourage that which it sees as beneficial to most and to discourage that which is see's as harmful to most. The way societies "view" is formed is through the effort of individuals who work to have their view become normative.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not saying it's optimal - someone else suggested a) it was and b) so what if it was.Track back and you'll see the context

Does the Bible happen to mention this hypothesis of yours? If not, then I can't see what relevance it might have to Club Christianity?- If your hypothesis is correct then fair enough. As your saying goes: open up a thread on the subject and I'll be happy to partake.

I'm not sure there's much use in ploughing that furrow. I mean, what constitutes 'harmful to society' lies in the eye of the beholder. You for example, might not see it as damaging that children are taught that it's perfectly acceptable for a man to have a relationship with a man. I don't. In so far as children are influenced so, I'd see it as harmful to society.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm Irish.And the U.S. Constitution was written by mere men - I don't see why any view they had should automatically trump any view I might have. What constitutes marriage is an arbitrary thing decided upon by society. If man/woman then man/woman and no rights are being denied man/man. If man/man also permitted then fair enough - but you have to have society grant that right before it can be in breech of it.Society decides what's a right and what's not. There is nothing absolute about it. No ultimate authority to be appealed to. Yet the democracy doesn't permit polygamy? Why not? Nor does it permit marriage between people under a certain age.A democracy doesn't mean anyone can do anything they like. I don't need to show it. I only need to have it and expend effort in such a way as to enable that view to hold sway. I mean, if considering homosexual behaviour damaging, what point in trying to show otherwise to a worldview bent in the opposite direction.

Sorry for baiting you jar. Allow me to retract my intercourse with you in this thread. I've simply not the appetite for chasing down jar-think to it's logical conclusion at the moment.

I think society will (not 'should') go in whatever direction those who expend effort in it's shaping choose to steer it. The word "should" implies a moral dimension - something which is a product of worldview, yours and mine. Why? My religious sensibilities inform me that homosexual practice it is a perverse behaviour. Naturally, I would consider exposing children to perverse behaviour (even in the form of normalising it, by permitting homosexual marriage) a harmful thing to do.You are free to disagree on homosexual behaviour being perverse - there is no resolution to that problem given that it's informed by undemonstrable worldview. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You don't seem to have understood. The harm comes in exposing a child to that which is considered perverse. We don't usually have to explain why exposing a child to something perverse is harmful. I don't mind that people don't conform. Indeed, I think it's unfair to expect them to. The issue is the shape of society and how I'd like it to be.We're both entitled to work towards our own goals. I wouldn't deny anyone that. And don't expect that I should be so denied.

It's for worldview reasons I find it perverse. It's for worldview reasons others do not. The same logic is being applied...

I wasn't talking of legal acceptability. I was talking of moral acceptability. I don't see how a 'better' message can be attached to something posited an immoral behaviour.- Thank you. What I seek to deny is societies affirming imprimateur on homosexual unions. This wouldn't prevent (nor would I desire that it prevent) homosexual relationships that may very well be happy and fulfulling.I don't see any particular reasion why homosexual unions should receive the same affirming imprimateur that hetrosexual unions attract.