|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
On what grounds null and void? In the sense of the marriage being considered never to have occured? Divorce doesn't do that.
Ever hear of annulment. I included a link so you could broaden your horizons. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I note that although automatic annullment through non-consumation is the case in only a few US states .. and Ireland, This is one of many reasons for granting of annulment. Read the link.
, the fact that it is so points to the intertwining of the two things. Ok I won't use snark here. But this would be a non-sequitor since the first part of the statement has been shown to be wrong and deceptive. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
God's order proscribes procreation within marriage. Proscribe :to denounce or condemn (a thing) as dangerous or harmful; prohibit. What word did you mean to use? Maybe I just misunderstand what you are trying to say here.But this sentence means. God's order condemns procreation within marriage. Please explain why you would say this. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
oops sorry didn't see this before I posted on it.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes:
Of course He would. What kind of example would He be if He didn't follow His own rules?
So you think Jesus would want to be corrected in this fashion "IF" he were in need of correction then? ICDESIGN writes:
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.
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. ICDESIGN writes:
But voting for a hateful action does mean you hate the person.
Disagreeing with an issue does not mean you hate the person. ICDESIGN writes:
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. Would you want someone to vote against you or the idea you are promoting? No you wouldn't. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
If society takes something instituted by God with the purpose of establishing the shape of society per his desire then it does indeed become societies problem. God dealt with the Babel Tower at societal level. People were getting married long before your god was even known, as for the tower of babel, more babbling from a bronze aged myth There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Taq writes: Then why don't you get God to post on this forum and tell us what those desires are. Since you're not going to respond in kind, i.e. produce absolute evidence for the position you hold, I don't see why I should. What's good for the goose is always good for the gander. -
Religiously based prejudices are still prejudices. Also, the whole point of the US Constitution is that restrictions on freedom should not be based on religious edicts. I don't know how Ireland's government is set up, but it may very well differ from the government here in the US. One mans prejudice is anothers sound judgement. Look Taq, there's not a lot of point in exchanging worldviews as if one or other is suddenly going to fold in the face of it. Better to stick to the topic, paraphrased thus: "does the pursuit of society as you want it necessarily result in hatred towards individuals" -
Not allowing homosexuals to marry does not remove them from society. They are still living together and raising children together whether or not they are married. Allowing homosexuals to marry in no way changes the fact that you think it is a sin. I can't see the ban on homosexual marriage as anything other than a petty punishment for those that you look down on. You would have to base that view on my evidencing it. You won't find that in what I say but are laying it onto what I say. Eigegesis is a way of getting a text to say anything you like. Stick to exegesis and you cannot hold that view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Sorry. Perscribe was the word I meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Theodoric writes: This is one of many reasons for granting of annulment. The point was to show that sex and marriage where viewed as intrinsically intertwined. The fact that marriages can be annulled for other reasons doesn't impinge on that. -
Ok I won't use snark here. But this would be a non-sequitor since the first part of the statement has been shown to be wrong and deceptive. Do try to steer between the forum rules...
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: Did you say "As stated earlier, whilst the core motivation to maintain a ban on gay marriage could be based on Christian belief, there is no need for one's activity to utilise those arguments." Have you presented anything other than appeal to the religious beliefs of YOUR chapter of Club Christian? No, because it's not the topic. The topic is whether or not activity towards prohibiting homosexual marriage is necessarily hatred-of-individuals driven. (You know that in your case especially, I restrict myself to as narrow a focus as possible. Dealing with single issue limits the scope of what I find to be serpentine wriggling on your part.)
Thank God those have no value or relevance to the topic which is about the legal contract known as marriage. That's not the topic - although it is involved in the topic. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Taq writes: That's fine, but we are talking about US law that must be fair to everyone, including those who do not accept your religious beliefs. The fact is that these families exist right now. They are a part of society right now. Let's not confuse my motivation for acting with a mode of acting. When it comes to actual action the object would be to utilise all the tools at my disposal to ensure the result desired. I'm sure the law on being fair to everyone isn't the only law involved. And that any law is open to interpretation and modification. That is the case in Ireland at least. -
Nowhere did I ask you to change your beliefs about homosexual marriage. If you think it is wrong then do not enter into a homosexual marriage. It is that simple. However, your religiously based prejudices should not restrict the rights of others. You do not have the right to decide how others should live their lives. You were making an appeal to utility as a reason to permit homosexuals marry. I was making the point that I thought there were other, higher concerns - aside from utility (which is based on mans wisdom) I have the right to work towards shaping society in any way I like - just like everyone. I don't accept that I am restricted to a set of rules on how I go about that (like secular-liberalisms sense of what constitutes fair play). -
The relationship between a person and their creator should be left to that person and their creator. True. But that's not an answer to the question asked. -
Take away the legal protections and see how they like it. No longer can wives be put on their husband's health insurance. No longer does a wife have the right to visit her husband in the hospital if the husband's family decides to ban her. No longer do stay at home wives have some financial security if the husband decides to run off with another woman. If the legal protections were so unimportant then people would not sign the legal documents and consider the priest's say so as the final word. You've sidestepped the point. You were positing the legal aspect of marriage the totality of marriage. I disagreed. That doesn't mean I think the legal aspect irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
subbie writes: Except you've yet to provide any evidence that your god wanted his rules enforced by law I guess William Wilberforce will be turning in his grave then..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Panda writes: Aahh...no children makes you a sinner. Got it.I'll tell the Pope. etc.. There's no material here to work with Panda. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Otto writes: Oh my! So your rationale for opposing gay marriage is to protect society from God's wrath? The society in which I live, yes. The wrath of God expressed would impinge on me too.
Does this mean that you side with Jerry Fallwell and his ilk in asserting, e.g., that Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans as a punishment incurred by the gay people in that city? No. Quite how/when God's wrath is expressed isn't for me to say. And I suspect that it would take the general form of a "handing men over to their sin" (per Romans). In other words, men intent on a slide downwards into depravity would be assisted on their way by the removal of God's restraint on them. That said: a God who won't stop at wiping out nations, and who intends to settle with all of mankind on an eternal basis couldn't be excluded as being behind the likes of tsumani and hurricanes. Phelps might be right in the letter, it's just the spirit with which he goes about his business might well be problematic in God's sight. -
Your "reasoning" strikes me as bizarre and patently ludicrous. Seeing as you filled in all the blanks yourself...
What an utterly typical and routine outcome! This seems to be the normal result whenever two or more people discuss biblical exegesis: the forever-repeated battle among competing, incompatible personal preferences, with God on all sides. Absolute and immutable moral authority of God's word, indeed! Crashfrog wasn't engaging in biblical exegesis. He was taking a statments like "blessed are the poor in spirit" and supposing it "blessed are the poor in finance". The three verses he supplied to support the notion of a 'political Jesus' were absurdly wide of the mark. More importantly however, a bible study has no relevance (that I can see) to the topic to hand. The issue is whether hatred of gays must be behind a desire for no gay marriage. -
Makes me wonder whether those gay ministers might really be true Christians, despite what you say I haven't said anything about gay ministers being/not being true Christians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
iano writes:
Considering the fact that whenever I have tried to get you to address the massive flaws in your arguement you have just cried like a baby - I did not expect very much. There's no material here to work with Panda. Sorry. Clearly you are homophobic but you have to shoe-horn that hatred into the christian religion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024