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

What I have shown is a disconnect between the claimed motivation and the results of the on-the-ground action. You claim that you do not want to vote for something that would promote or propogate homosexuality. Voting for gay marriage does not promote or propogate homosexuality. People are gay whether or not they are married or allowed to be married, and they will be involved in homosexual relationships whether or not they can get married.

The OP is couched in terms of love and hate.Them's the two options.Laws in the US must have a clear secular purpose.

quote:

---

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.

---

Now if someone did not vote against same-sex marriage then possibly a case could be made that there is neither love or hate, simply indifference. But that is not the case.Given the two options in the OP, love and hate, you need to show some motivation that is NOT hateful and is NOT religious based.So far every reason you have presented seems to be related to YOUR beliefs, that same-sex behavior is a sin.BUT ... marriage is NOT sexual behavior. That happens within and outside marriage.Marriage is a legal, social contract.By denying marriage to a subgroup you deny them health care, inheritance, emotional support, protection from physical and emotional abuse, property rights and many other things that are associated with the legal contract called marriage.I can see no other possible description of such actions than hateful.BUT ... You can try to show why the legal contract referred to as marriage should be denied one subgroup of citizens.

---

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

Not at all. When we look for harm, we ask the victim, not the perpetrator. The perpetrator's denial is self-serving. You don't get to be your own judge and jury.If gay people claim they are being harmed, then we (as a society and as Christians) need to take that claim seriously. Doesn't it bother you at all that you're using the same resoning used to justify slavery, segregation, apartheid, etc.? The end justifies the means? If it's for "the good of society", it doesn't matter who you strangle?I'm still going with the conclusion that strangulation indicates hate.Edited by ringo, : Added the word "own".

---

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

Your judicial language is another form of begging the question Ringo. What has gay considering themselves harmed got to do with the motivation for the action which produces that being hatred?- You can use all the hyperbole you like Ringo, it doesn't hide the fact you're position bounces off the defence like ball bearings off an ocean liner. There is no one being strangled, just benefits extended to some and not to others. It happens all the time in society.

I'm sure those who worked towards abolition of same considered it good for society that they be abolished. I'm sure you won't demand that I dig up quote or two from those involved who saw that such practices would eat away at the fabric of the society in which they were allowed to flourish.I'd note too that the Christian position is that such practices are sinful so would imagine Christians then motivated by a desire to eradicate such sin from society.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Not at all. The thread is about accusations of hatred. It's very much about judging whether or not those accusations are valid. When somebody claims that they are being harmed, we (as a society and as Christians) have to take their complaints seriously. The first question is whether or not the harmful action occured. If it did, and if the accused did commit the act, then his motivations are only significant insofar as they mitigate what society does with him.In the case if voting against same-sex marriage, nobody is suggesting that the perpetrators should be punished, so there's no question of mitigation and motive is irrelevant. The question here isn't about "extending" benefits to some. It's about specifically denying benefits based on prejudice. The principle of harm is the same whether it's denying marriage rights or withholding medical care or actively assaulting the individual.

---

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

And not just benefits. The contract of marriage carries responsibilities as well.

---

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

You've managed to turn it upside down. Those who worked for the abolition of slavery, segragation, apartheid, etc. were working against inequality. They were doing unto others as they wanted others to do unto them.Those who are working for the prohibition of same-sex marriage are working for inequality. It's the exact opposite, which is why I find it odd that some Christians have switched sides.Edited by ringo, : Missspelled my own name.

---

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

Well, no what? It says plain as day homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. You were wrong when you said the bible does not say gay's will not go to heaven. Of course, I never expected you to be man enough to admit you were wrong. 1Corinthians is not an anonymous epistle. You can discover that if you read the first verse.
Hebrews is the only book of the bible with an unknown writer. I thought Iano covered this well enough in Message 304 but let me say this; its just as hard for a liar to enter heaven as a homosexual or any other sinner. The homosexual is named specifically several times throughout scripture because homosexuality is a specific sin. Once again you are entirely wrong. Sexual immorality is one of the most condemned and talked against sins in scripture. Actually Crash, you surprised me here and were actually half right about something for a change. You painted yourself into a corner though. On the one hand you are saying no one can earn entry into the kingdom of God. On the other hand you are saying you can qualify by being Christlike enough. You can't have it both ways.I can walk you through the actual truth as to what the scripture does teach but I would like to see your answer first.IC

Hi Ringo, I'm sorry, but it's not that simple. William Wilberforce, perhaps the most prominent anti-slavery campaigner in Britain, was a keen moral crusader, firmly committed to imposing his own uptight, Victorian Protestant version of Christian principles on society at large.

quote:

---

Greatly concerned by what he perceived to be the degeneracy of British society, Wilberforce was also active in matters of moral reform, lobbying against "the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances", and considered this issue and the abolition of the slave trade as equally important goals. At the suggestion of Wilberforce and Bishop Porteus, King George III was requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury to issue in 1787 the Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice, as a remedy for the rising tide of immorality. The proclamation commanded the prosecution of those guilty of "excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord's Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices".
...
Wilberforce sought to increase its impact by mobilising public figures to the cause, and by founding the Society for Suppression of Vice. This and other societies in which Wilberforce was a prime mover, such as the Proclamation Society, mustered support for the prosecution of those who had been charged with violating relevant laws, including brothel keepers, distributors of pornographic material, and those who did not respect the Sabbath.
...
The societies were not highly successful in terms of membership and support, although their activities did lead to the imprisonment of Thomas Williams, the London printer of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.

---

William Wilberforce - WikipediaSadly, Wilberforce would probably agree with Iano that gays should not be allowed to enjoy simple civic liberties. Don't get me wrong; in most respects Wilberforce was a great man. His influence made the world a better place in many ways. It's just that his various ideas about how a moral society should function - which he saw as entirely harmonious - were in reality a bit of a mixed bag. Nah, they haven't switched sides. They were always fucking hypocrites.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm not particularly interested in people's motivations or professed motivations. The overall effect was that they were working against inequality even if real equality was the last thing on their minds. They were taking a step toward equality even if they were doing it for the wrong reasons.Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is better than doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

---

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

I know what you're saying, but it seems clear to me that Wilberforce did both good and ill with his campaigning. On balance, most of his work was good. It could hardly fail to have had a positive influence given how extraordinarily callous British society was in his day.He may have done the right thing for the wrong reasons, but it's clear that he also did some very wrong things for the wrong reasons, like getting publishers locked up for exercising their right to free speech.I think that Iano is falling into the same trap as Wilberforce; he is being misled by his own use of religion as a guiding principle, instead of a consistent morality. Plus ca change...Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

And those, such as my 3-greats-grandfather George Junkin, D.D., who wrote and fought for slavery to be maintained considered that slavery was not only essential to society, but also ordained by God. And that God had laid out why it was essential in his Bible.Thirty years hence, Iano, and your opinion will be held as quaint as his is today.

According to your chapter of Club Christian. Other chapters would see things differently.

---

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

This is exactly the argument that the segregationists and apartheidists used. You might keep that in mind.So you are openly admitting that you think we should not extend benefits to someone because you do not like their sexual preference. Is that correct?