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

I know, not another gay topic! That's sooo gay!But the off-topic discussion between Taz and ICDESIGN in the No webpage found at provided URL: Deconversion thread gave me a chance to reflect on the Christian hypocrisy of "Hate the sin but love the person."Here's the exchange for those who haven't read it. From this I gather that, if a christian was to judge another person and hate them in the process for the lifestyle that he/she may choose to live, then it is the christian who is the sinner.Ok, I got that so far.Taz then asks: To which ICDESIGN responds: And here's where I see the hypocrisy.I believe that voting to stop homosexuals from getting married is NOT hating the sin, but in fact hating the "sinner." The denial of marriage ONLY affects the lives of those who want to get married. So by denying that right to someone, you are taking it out on the "sinner."In fact, the ONLY way to hate the sin is really by just personally hating the sin. Any action taken shifts the hate onto the person it affects.Taz makes this point: The jist of which I feel (Taz you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that, even though we may hate some one's ideology (or lifestyle), we would not vote against them living a life and enjoying the freedoms awarded to everyone else.ICDESIGN should agree with this since he/she did say: "I would just like to say that any Christian who hates another person because of their lifestyle is wrong and walking in sin."So, to conclude this post, either ICDESIGN is him/herself commiting a sin by infringing on a gay persons right to living a life with the same freedom awarded to everyone else...-OR-ICDESIGN is a hypocrite who feels that only some people who sin should be loved and allowed to live and enjoy the freedom awarded to everyone else.Opinions, anyone...?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen. ~ JBR

Thread copied here from the Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Nowadays, we live in a world that is all about political correctness. And with that, it is no longer politically correct to proclaim oneself certain things. For example, it is no longer politically correct or fashionable to proclaim oneself being against interracial marriage. But there are still people who are against interracial marriage. When confronted, they will tell you that they're not against interracial marriage, but they do think it is a bad idea because of cultural differences and such. But in the end, let's be honest with ourselves. Deep down they are against interracial marriage. They just know that it's not politically correct to say so, so they try to beat around the bush and say something else that essentially mean the same thing.For example, take a look at the following article back in 2004.Alabama clings to segregationist past | World news | The Guardian

quote:

---

A statute banning interracial marriage in the state was struck down only four years ago by 59% to 41%, with a majority of whites voting against the change.

---

But if you confront them about it they will say that they are completely for interracial marriage. But in the voting booth, 41% of them would vote against it. That's the world of political correctness for you.In regard to gay rights issue, the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase is just another excuse concocted by haters to appear more politically correct. They know that it is not very politically correct or fashionable for them to say they don't want gay people to be happy. They will LIE right through their teeth to make up this phantom issue that gay marriage will ruin their marriage. They will claim that because they love the sinner but hate the sin, they will vote against gay rights legislations.Ever heard the phrase "nothing person, just business"? The "hate the sin but love the sinner" is exactly like that business phrase. You get to do something very damaging and personal to someone else, but you can weasel your way out of the blame by claiming it to be "just business". I can go out and kidnap a couple of teenage girls, sell them in the sex slave market, and tell them "don't take it personally, it's only business".That's what voting against gay rights in the name of "hate the sin but love the sinner" really is! The phrase allows people to do very damaging things to other people on the most personal level without appearing to take the blame. Why? Because in regards to human rights issues, everything is very personal.Capturing people and ship them to another continent to be slaves is a very personal thing. Telling them to get up and go to the back of the bus is a very personal thing. Telling people they can't adopt homeless children is a very personal thing. These are all very personal things.If you're going to do these damaging and personal things to other people, at least be christian enough to admit it. Don't hide behind the "hate the sin but love the sinner" bullshit.

That is creo logic for you, use it if it fits and if it dose not stomp all over it until such a time when it fits again to support your argument.I think it is because faith is more important to them then consistency, because consistency can sometimes disrupt faith and they cant have that, so they throw away consistency when it disrupts faith and haul it back in when it benefits them.

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.

But someone homosexual won't suddendly have a straight family if this person isn't allowed to marry someone of the same sex. How does allowing homosexual to marry affect others exactly?I also need to add that the most beneficial "types of family units" would be 1 man, 1 woman, 2.1 children. Should we warrant everyone to be this way? Should we force people to marry because "it's beneficial to society"?For your last paragraph, if I consider Christians to be harmful to society, should I be allowed to forbid your religion if I somehow get a majority? Didn't they already try the tyranny of the majority somewhere? How did that work out?

How does homosexuals getting married affect heterosexuals? Other than some misguided religious prohibition. Bullshit. That is exactly what is based upon, no matter what kind of logical gymnastics you want to go through.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Ah, I see, it would be based on God being the the Bigot instead. Got you. Makes sense now.

---

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

This is true in the same way that killing a butterfly has an effect on the weather.The effects on the couple denied the benefits of marriage outweigh any possible deleterious effect to society by many orders of magnitude. The thin and wispy notions of the 'greater good' are completely disproportionate, and nearly irrelevant, to the real and tangible discrimination and restriction of personal freedom.Tolerance only applies to those things with which we disagree.

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.

Yeah, off and on. I'm actually on a plane now heading to Atlanta for a weekend shows, if anyhone is in that area message me. This plane wifi is pretty fucking cool. Well my premise was that the denial of marriage affected only those who wanted to get married.But sure, allowing them to get married affects society, but on that point who gives a shit? Everything affects society, that doesn't stop us from doing it.I just meant denying them only affects them. Wouldn't the non-bias thing be to be against ALL marriage? Why only gay marriage?- Oni

This goes back to Taz's point above. This isn't really what they believe. It may be what they say, but it isn't what they actually think. They think homosexuality is icky and gross. It makes them very uncomfortable. They think it is sinful. Therefore, homosexuals should not get married.It has nothing to do with society since homosexual couples are already raising children in a family unit and it works just fine. Banning homosexual marriages will not stop (and has not stopped) homosexuals from living together and raising children together. If anything, the "family values" crowd should be promoting the idea of homosexual marriages since it provides legal protections to these families that will help them succeed (such as access to health care for the children).

Therefore heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married either. This makes the assumption that higher health care costs would be the results. Your premise is flawed in many ways. Maternity care is a very high percent of costs for insurance companies. Homosexuals usually do not have maternity costs. Also, the bigger the pool of people insured the lower the cost of insurance. This is why smaller groups have higher premiums. So getting homosexual partners on to a plan could conceivable lower premiums.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.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Unsupported assumption. If you can't even determine if the effect would be positive or negative, there's no way to establish that there would be any change at all.

---

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

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!"