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

Ketchup jar. The motivation to ensure the law prohibits gay marriage can be based on the view that such a thing is sin. Since motivation to form law is relevant to the formation of law, sin is relevant.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I wasn't aware that you were working to prevent the propagation of all kinds of sin in society. Could you tell us more about your campaign to re-introduce the death penalty for adulterers, disobedient children, and people who work on Saturdays? I think you'll find that there's a lot more of that going on than gay marriage, and it's important to have a sense of priorities.Of course, if your priority was being mean to gay people rather than extirpating sin, then concentrating on them would make perfect sense. But (as you have explained) you are a crusader against all kinds of sin, and so perhaps you should start with the more common and more flagrant violations of the actual Ten Commandments and then move on to gay marriage when you're done with that.

No, I'm describing humans born naturally from a male and female. Yes, I got that but I don't find that to be correct. "Normality" is anything naturally created by nature.Your worldview or my worldview become irrelevant, as they should, because nature trumps our individual ideologies. In this sense, there are no true abnormalities, just by-products of a not-so-perfect reproduction process where each individual is normal (as in, human) yet unique at the same time.By excluding our individual worldview/s, we make it fair for everyone to have equal rights. And by denying any one specific group rights on the basis of YOUR worldview, you show your prejudice on that group. Something that I pointed out in the OP was not Christian-like. And according to your Bible, it too is a sin.So you are commiting a sin by judging, and you are ONLY hurting the sinner when denying them equal rights.- Oni

Fortunately, not in the US. In the US there must be a clear secular reason for any law, and sin don't just cut it.1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.Note the first item. If it fails that it is out.You need to show why the legal contract referred to as marriage should be denied one subgroup of citizens.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle and add lemon test requirements.

---

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

A clear display of atheistic, materialistic worldview. I mean, you clearly don't think the abnormalities which are produced by unnatural nature, abnormal. (which would be a clear display of this theists worldview)- Nature couldn't trump my idealogy (assuming for a moment it's true) because my ideology explains why nature produces abnormalities (including those in me). It's only your ideology which (correctly) see's itself subject to nature (although in order to be able to pronouce so, it must momentarily rise above nature - I mean, how can the brain-by-accident know it is correctly observing nature )Since the rest of your post is predicated on this point, I leave answering it.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

No, providing what you are preventing is truly a sin, which has not been shown. Because you see something as sinful doesn't make it so.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

You keep using "necessarily" as an escape hatch.Gay people are being harmed by that "work". The claim that harming them is not motivated by hate is self-serving.If you're harming gay people with some motivation other than hate, you win the thread but you're still going to have a lot to answer for at the pearly gates. The smoking gun is your posts in this thread.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Thanks for the reply, iano. As I said, your position is familiar to me.But since so much of my post was impenetrable to you, and I am too sick and tired for lengthy exchanges (and because you have no shortage of interlocutors), I'll take my leave of the thread.

---

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Wrong. You (or someone else) needs to show why my working towards a prohibition of gay marriage is necessarily hateful.It's been requested that folk don't conflate motivation (let's call it religious) with any on-the-ground action. You can assume any action would utilise those aspects which could be expected to produce a suitable outcome. Actions which wouldn't produce the desired result wouldn't be used.

Okay Omni - although you're about the most enjoyable interlocuter in-thread (in that there's the chance of encountering a unbelievers view of Jesus unheard of before). I hope the sick & tiredness stemming only from debate weariness. But a temporary and passing shadow.Blessings.

Because it is denying the rights of one group on religious grounds, and no other reason.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

Allowing gays to marry is not the same as promoting homosexuality. We allow people to consume alcoholic beverages, but that in no way encourages consumption. What definition of love involves taking away their freedoms and liberties?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Calling it an escape hatch signifies a position yet to be achieved by you. The neutral terms for it is a possible option. When that possible option has been reasonably closed then you can call it as you do Begging the question. It would depend on motivation. If that motivation genuinely saw danger and harm for society (however difficult it might be to pin that down in a way that would satisfy a worldview which worships at the altar of empiricism) then I don't see any problem at the judgement of believers.

Then you need to show how banning gay marriage prevents people from being gay.

Whether there is a god or not, organisms reproduce naturally, yes?And the by-product of the reproduction process is a naturally born organism, yes?Their presense on Earth is natural, yes?The only thing unnatural here is their behavior, in your opinion obviously. But they themselves, the human being, is natural, yes? You have not addressed the point in any case.Even if you find the sexual behavior of a few humans abnormal, when you vote against these people getting married, it doesn't affect their behavior. They will continue regardless of your vote.The ONLY one affected when you deny rights, is the person, the sinner. And that is hating the sinner and not the sin. That is acting to hurt the sinner and not to act against the sin.It continues to expose the Christian hypocrisy.- Oni