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

Might I ask whatsoever does this have to do with hating the sin but loving the person. It every instance you show that you hate both the sin and the sinner. Whether the homosexual will inherit the Kingdom of God, if there is such a thing, is irrelevant to the premise.Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

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

Again your own comments destroy your argument. You truly equate homosexuals with rapists and thieves. How sad and how disgusting.

---

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

It seems pretty obvious I must have been responding to a comment Crashfrog made in an earlier post. And what it has to do with the thread is establishing the fact that homosexuality is actually listed as a sin in the bible which makes it relevant to the premise.IC

And sins are irrelevant and cannot be used as a reason for any US laws.In addition, the topic is about marriage.What valid reason can you provide for denying the legal contract known as marriage to a subset of US citizens?

---

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

Eating catfish or gathering firewood on Saturday are in there as sins, too. Do you have a point?

Maybe you should be campaigning for God to let the homosexuals in, like Abraham campaigned for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. How will He know He's wrong if we don't tell Him?

My valid reason is that homosexuality is a perversion. That is my opinion. We as a society should not validate perverted behavior or give benefits to this lifestyle. Many laws revolve around decency. This is why you are not allowed to run through the mall naked or have sex with children under 18. This is also why bestiality is outlawed. We as a society need guidelines defined by decency and (in my opinion) homosexuality crosses that line.I don't see animals living as homosexuals. It is unnatural.

Sorry but perversion is NOT relevant in US Law.Nor is "natural" or "unnatural".Second, homosexuality is NOT the issue or even related to the topic. We are discussing the legal contract referred to as marriage.You need to provide a reason that is NOT related to your religious beliefs.Do you understand basic US laws?I'll repeat some basics for you.

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.

---

What is the clear secular reason why the legal contract referred to as marriage should be denied one subgroup of citizens?Remember homosexuality is NOT relevant, perversion is not relevant, sin is not relevant; we are only talking about denying the legal contract referred to as marriage to one subgroup of citizens?

---

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

So you equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality?

---

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

So people should have their rights taken away because of your opinion? Or should people be allowed to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't interfere with your rights?

Again, the question is not, "Do you think people of the same sex should have sex with one another?"Sexual perversions exist just the same in the hetero community, but what happens in the bedroom between two concenting adults is not in question here. That is, as always, left private. Do you see any animals using Viagra or penis pumps? Have you ever seen animals artificially inseminate themselves?Yet straight couples do this all the time. It is unnatural. But would you deny a man the right to marry a woman because he needs the help of Viagra or a penis pump?Would you deny a couple the right to marry because they need artificial insemination?Of course you wouldn't, and we don't deny them the right to marry. Even though what they are doing is completely unnatural.Just be honest and say you personally find it disgusting and don't want to see it. It is clear you are a hypocrite, at least be honest about it.- Oni

Tangential to the topic, I know, but because IC hasn't Ceen something doesn't mean it isn't fairly common. Penguins, sheep, and a hundred or more other species have been documented to have homosexual individuals.

---

"God is Santa Claus for adults."
- Mad Kallie

Hi ICdesign, Well you have now.

quote:

---

Gay swans set up nest at world's only swannery in Dorset

​

Two male swans have ruffled feathers at the world's only swannery in Dorset after they set up a love nest together. The happy couple at Abbotsbury Swannery are the only homosexual swans among more than 1,000 birds at the reserve.

​

They are believed to be only the second male pair ever to hook up at the reserve. The pair show no interest in their female companions and only have eyes for each other.

​

Dave Wheeler, from the swannery, said: "The two birds both hatched in 2002 and are sort of together. They have been together for several nesting seasons and basically keep territory as if they are a nesting pair."

---

Environment - The TelegraphI wonder why you didn't see this, or any of the many other examples of animal homosexuality, before. Did you try looking? a) No it isn't, and;
b) So is the internet, but you use that.So I guess you're going to change your mind now you know that homosexuality is natural? Or perhaps you would prefer not to base your opinions upon the fallacy of Appeal to Nature?Mutate and SurvivePS: I know this is woefully off-topic, I know. I don't intend to pursue it. I've made my point. It's just that when I see someone saying things as blatantly wrong as this, it's hard to resist.

---

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

According to the Bible, it all is. But the Bible doesn't say that all of the Bible is scripture. Surely "Paul" could not have been referring to the epistles written after 2nd Timothy, for instance, because he could not have had access to them to judge their worth. I'm not sure it's likely that "Paul" was even referring to his own epistles - he was just writing letters to the early Church to help them spread and understand the words of Jesus. Surely no reasonable person in that situation would have believed they were writing Holy Scripture.Therefore where the words of Paul contradict the words of Jesus, we have to go with Jesus. I mean, you're a Christian, not a Paulian, right? Rich in money, clearly; and it's clearly the assumption of the Bible that it is more or less impossible to amass great worldly wealth without the exploitation of others, which is why the Bible connects worldliness and worldly success with corruption and sin, and suffering and being oppressed with holiness. Right, and the means by which one is to love God is to love the "least of these", the oppressed, the low, the marginalized, the powerless, because as you do unto these, so do you unto God. And in this case you're putting your distaste for the sin of homosexuality ahead of God. You can't have it both ways - you can't claim to be building a "holier society" on the backs of a marginalized gay class and claim to be loving God. God is very clear how he wants to be loved, and it's by demonstration - by your relationships to your fellow men, particularly the ones least accepted by society. No, it's not literally the rich - God isn't going to run an audit on your finances to see if you qualify for Heaven Welfare. But the Bible is pretty clear about the relationship it expects you to have with the oppressed and the marginalized - you're supposed to be on their side, God's side, not the side of the wealthy and powerful who exploit and oppress them. When a boot is on someone's neck, God never ever sides with the boot. Never ever.

Only if you interpret the Bible as saying no one will go to Heaven. Obviously, it doesn't mean that, so clearly it doesn't mean that gay men and women are barred from Heaven. It's traditionally attributed to "Paul" but everybody realizes those attributions are just legends. Nobody knows who actually wrote the epistles. Indeed. Yet sinners go to Heaven, do they not?Or are you literally saying that absolutely no one goes to Heaven? Surely that's not the case? Homosexual acts are not named specifically; they're given the same treatment as liars, as fornicators, as those who wear cloth of different fibers, as those who plant different kinds of crops in the same fields, as those who eat shellfish, and so on. In other words - sins, but not specifically disqualifying for Heaven.Being rich, on the other hand, and exploiting the downtrodden and oppressed? Specifically barred from Heaven. Not so. Not at all correct. Throughout the messages of Jesus he has hardly any time to talk about sexual sins; it's primarily those who have sinned by shirking their responsibility to their fellow people, or exploited the downtrodden for material wealth. That's the message of the Gospels, certainly. If you don't get that then it's not likely you've even read them. That's because I've read more of the Bible than you. I'm sure you have one around your house, you should open it once in a while. I'm not having it both ways. Like I said:

quote:

---

No one can earn entry into the kingdom of God, IC. You can only disqualify yourself from the grace of Christ by not being Christlike.

---

Christ's strongest possible denunciations were reserved for those who oppressed others and exploited others for material gain. There's nothing at all in the Bible that says you shouldn't love certain kinds of people. Quite the opposite. You'd know that, IC, if you'd ever read your Bible.