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

Of course england can coqure Ireland and enslave it and if the UN is no longer an authority you would not be able to do anything about it. Tough that has not happens yet and it is a very small chance that it will so currently rights are rights and privileges are privileges.And one day god may come down and say gay is the only way to go if you want to go to heaven, and he might also say it is ok to compare bricks to apples

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."

---

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

The fact that there are others reasons for annulment defeats the argument you are trying to present. Your argument on annulment only holds sway if a marriage can be annulled solely for non consummation. Without this piece the argument has no value.

---

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

You actually are equating the continued banning of gay marriage with the abolition of the slave trade?This is wrong on so many levels. Not least of which is the insulting and disgusting attempt at a moral equivalence.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

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

I wonder what you are going to say when some pranists start a referendum on no more killing livestock because their religion prohibits killing of any animal. When they start to fight for no more production of bug spray .....When muslims start protesting to stop pork meat from being sold in shops.Or jews to stop producig food that is not koer or whateverIf you base your opinion that the laws of your religion must be enforced this opens the door so other religions laws must be enforced too.But fundies like you cannot see that because you do not acknowledge that other religions should have the same rights as your religion.And any one of those claims above can be supported with the same arguments as you have given for no gay marriage. The difference is that they would be fighting for surpessig privileges while you fight to suppress a right.

...or secular liberalists demand the freedom to marry as many people as they like.I don''t know why you're wondering - given my oft-repeated view that all are entitled to work towards moulding society into the shape they want. Pranists, Muslims, Jews, secular liberalists. And me.- I've just done that (again). And included a sample irreligionist (secular liberalist) along with a representive sample of religionist.That should about cover all possible viewpoints. If I've missed one then I'd be happy to clarify their rights in this matter too.

I was attempting to undermine your suggestion that God doesn't want his people to advance his kingdom through use of law. Can I now consider that claim dealt with?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The argument I am trying to present is that consumation is intrinsically tied up with societies view of a valid marriage. Why does the fact that there are other things intrinsically tied up with what society views as valid marriage (eg: the people are sane, the people give free consent) diminish the intrinsic ties between consumation and marriage?(other than you merely saying it's not so, I mean)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You're still missing the point of the thread. Hate the sin, not the sinner. It has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with what drives the activity.When a Christian votes against gay marriage, is it driven by hatred of the individuals or the perceived sin?I don't see that anyone has actually made a good argument for hatred of the individual.From your view it may be seen as hatred, but that doesn't mean hatred is actually the driving force behind the decision.

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!"

You would rather look like a bag of hammers than admit your wrong wouldn't you ringo? But as I stated before, I welcome them to vote against my marriage if they are against it because I acknowledge their right to participate in our Democracy. And further more I wouldn't accuse them of hating me if they did vote against it.Do you ever vote ringo? If you do I have to assume that you always do so out of hate.
Everything you are against is hatred. You and your buddies on this site think from a foundation of hate and that's why you assume everyone else does the same. How pathetic !!
IC

Ocourse it is hatred of the individuals. You cannot do anything to stop "sin" tough you can punish the individual.Lets take it this way if your god would not have wanted sin he would not give us free will, in essence you are taking their free will.The only action you could take to hate the sin but love the person if you would go to a gay individual and try to tell him and convince him he is sinning and he should stop because you love him and you do not want him to go to hell.If you take away the option of the individual to commit sin it would be like castration after you make your 2.1 kids hating the penis and hating more than 2.1 kids.Or burnig a heretic after he repented so he will go to heven and not to hell. Hating the mans free will and hating the sin it brings.Killing your children after they are baptisted so they go to heaven hating the children's ability to sin and hating the sin. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

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. 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? 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? We don't have referenda in Canada. Emotional voting is one of the things that makes them a bad idea. 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!"

No.At most, you've shown that William Wilberforce supports using the law to advance biblical principals. (Of course, since you've presented none of Wilberforce's reasoning, you haven't actually shown even that much, but I'm feeling generous this morning.)

---

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

Would you not? And yet you will make the following accusations against ringo: So, you say that if someone tried to meddle in your private life so as to actually dissolve your marriage, you wouldn't accuse them of hating you. But if someone urges you not to so meddle in the private lives of others you will accuse him (and, for some reason, all his friends) of "thinking from a foundation of hate".How odd.For myself, I would take it more unkindly if someone tried to forcibly divorce me and my wife against our will than if they made a post on an internet forum urging me to keep my nose out of other people's private lives. But it seems that you see more hatred in the suggestion that you shouldn't interfere in the love lives of gay people than you would in a compulsion to dissolve your marriage.Obviously the two of us have very different priorities. My marriage is more important to me than making gay people unhappy; but I guess it would be a strange world if we were all the same.