Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 376 of 391 (597633)
12-22-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by ICdesign
12-22-2010 7:37 PM


I have a picture of a moose humping a buffalo statue that I can't figure how to transfer to here.
right click copy image location, and then put it in between img and /img incased in the same thing as you use when you quote.
Animals have instinct driven impulses that they aren't sure how to express when the urges are powerful. To associate this drive with human homosexuality is a mistake in my opinion.
So do humans it is all chemestry when you find someone you are attracted too the first thing your body does is sniff for the feromones that person gives off.
Hormones are a big part in our decision making, for example it often accrues that a mother killed her child and then regrets the act the reason is that her hormone levels where screwing with her thought process.
That is why we cannot rationalize love cause it is an ANIMAL THING
Gays get the same vibes you get when you see/ get to know a person you find attractive the only difference is that they get those vibes only from the same sex while you only get them from the opposite sex.
It is not like they want to fall in love with the same sex. It is the same procceess that you cannot control, and it makes you fall in love with who you fall in love with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by ICdesign, posted 12-22-2010 7:37 PM ICdesign has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 377 of 391 (597634)
12-22-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by ICdesign
12-22-2010 7:26 PM


New topic?
everybody realizes those attributions are just legends. Nobody knows who actually wrote the epistles.
You are 100% wrong. ...Oh that's right. Crashfrog said it so that makes it true. I forgot that principle.
How about starting a thread on this so we can see your evidence? I'd really like to see your support for the traditional attributions.
Does anyone know if there is already a thread for this?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by ICdesign, posted 12-22-2010 7:26 PM ICdesign has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 378 of 391 (597635)
12-22-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by ICdesign
12-22-2010 4:33 PM


Re: marriage not sin is the topic
My valid reason is that homosexuality is a perversion.
So no one that is "perverted" should marry.
So "interacial" marriges are also "perverted" and should not be allowed
Some people have a thing for "little people" they should not marry them because it is perverted only people of the same hight should marry.
All the people who marry young husbands or wives while they are old are also perverted and should not be allowed to marry.
Or does only what your bible calls perverted or an abomination actually perverted if so then why all the fuss about the pedophile priests there is nothing about pedophilia being perverted in the bible.
And again if mix religion with law you open the door to other religions doing the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by ICdesign, posted 12-22-2010 4:33 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by arachnophilia, posted 12-22-2010 8:25 PM frako has not replied
 Message 380 by ICdesign, posted 12-22-2010 8:30 PM frako has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 379 of 391 (597636)
12-22-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by frako
12-22-2010 7:58 PM


Re: marriage not sin is the topic
Or does only what your bible calls perverted or an abomination actually perverted if so then why all the fuss about the pedophile priests there is nothing about pedophilia being perverted in the bible.
or polygamy.
but divorce? oh, don't get me started on divorce.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by frako, posted 12-22-2010 7:58 PM frako has not replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 380 of 391 (597638)
12-22-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by frako
12-22-2010 7:58 PM


Re: marriage not sin is the topic
Definition: perversion (from websters dictionary)
Noun
2. An aberrant sexual practice;.
3. The action of perverting something (turning it to a wrong use); "it was a perversion of justice".
4. The act of perverting, or the state of being perverted; a turning from truth or right; a diverting from the true intent or object; a change to something worse; a turning or applying to a wrong end or use
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
franko writes:
So "interacial" marriges are also "perverted" and should not be allowed
Some people have a thing for "little people" they should not marry them because it is perverted only people of the same hight should marry.
All the people who marry young husbands or wives while they are old are also perverted and should not be allowed to marry?
How are any of these things perverted franko?
why all the fuss about the pedophile priests there is nothing about pedophilia being perverted in the bible.
Oh really? Try reading the warning Jesus gave in Matthew 18:6...Whoever causes one of these little ones...to stumble, it would be better for him if a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea".
Do you think molesting a child might cause a child to stumble?
Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by frako, posted 12-22-2010 7:58 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by jar, posted 12-22-2010 8:35 PM ICdesign has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 381 of 391 (597639)
12-22-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by ICdesign
12-22-2010 8:30 PM


Re: marriage not sin is the topic
Well, according to the Bible knocking up little (likely maybe 12 years old) virgins is okay. Mary, Mary ...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by ICdesign, posted 12-22-2010 8:30 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by ICdesign, posted 12-22-2010 9:14 PM jar has replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 382 of 391 (597644)
12-22-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by jar
12-22-2010 8:35 PM


Re: marriage not sin is the topic
jar writes:
Well, according to the Bible knocking up little (likely maybe 12 years old) virgins is okay. Mary, Mary...
I can't help but wonder if God will let me sit on the front row with a party favor when your turn in front of the throne comes up...
...oh, in case you haven't noticed after for times now, I don't care what you think about the law.
Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.
Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by jar, posted 12-22-2010 8:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by jar, posted 12-22-2010 9:22 PM ICdesign has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 383 of 391 (597647)
12-22-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by ICdesign
12-22-2010 9:14 PM


Re: marriage not sin is the topic
ICDESIGN writes:
jar writes:
Well, according to the Bible knocking up little (likely maybe 12 years old) virgins is okay. Mary, Mary...
I can't help but wonder if God will let me sit on the front row with a party favor when your turn in front of the throne comes up...
...oh, in case you haven't noticed after for times now, I don't care what you think about the law.
I will gladly invite you.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by ICdesign, posted 12-22-2010 9:14 PM ICdesign has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 384 of 391 (597653)
12-22-2010 10:27 PM


"I never engaged in this kind of thing before..."
But surely the "Hate the Sin..." thread is so done the meat is falling off the bones.
Arguments against ICdesign's stance have reached the 3rd or 4th round of repetition, and ICdesign has reached the nyah-nyah stage of his arc.
Please make it stop.
Edited by Omnivorous, : Better subtitle with a Minnesota connection to soften a Moose's heart.

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp
Real things always push back.
-William James

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by iano, posted 12-23-2010 7:10 AM Omnivorous has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 385 of 391 (597666)
12-23-2010 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Omnivorous
12-22-2010 10:27 PM


Re: "I never engaged in this kind of thing before..."
I agree the thread is done - there isn't a variation on the "my worldview/interpretation-of-the-bible is more valid that yours Q.E.D" that hasn't been done to death already.
As purpledawn has pointed out a couple of times, the issue itself contra gay marriage necessarily hateful has filtered through virtually untouched.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Omnivorous, posted 12-22-2010 10:27 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Dogmafood, posted 12-23-2010 8:38 AM iano has not replied

Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 386 of 391 (597671)
12-23-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by iano
12-23-2010 7:10 AM


Re: "I never engaged in this kind of thing before..."
As purpledawn has pointed out a couple of times, the issue itself contra gay marriage necessarily hateful has filtered through virtually untouched.
I disagree. The OP framed it as 'Hate the sin, love the sinner". It has been shown that being contra gay marriage is neither hating the sin nor loving the sinner.
The related issue of Christian hypocrisy has been shown, imho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by iano, posted 12-23-2010 7:10 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by ICdesign, posted 12-23-2010 8:58 AM Dogmafood has replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 387 of 391 (597674)
12-23-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by Dogmafood
12-23-2010 8:38 AM


Re: "I never engaged in this kind of thing before..."
It has been shown that being contra gay marriage is neither hating the sin nor loving the sinner.
I disagree. I think it has been clearly shown I can be against gay marriage without hating a single person. I further think it has been clearly shown that the "Golden Rule" cannot apply in the voting booth.
I do agree this subject is way past done. I apologize for straying so far off the OP path.
May I sincerely wish each and every one of you a very Merry Christmas !!!
ICdesign
Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Dogmafood, posted 12-23-2010 8:38 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Theodoric, posted 12-23-2010 9:28 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 389 by Dogmafood, posted 12-23-2010 4:25 PM ICdesign has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 388 of 391 (597676)
12-23-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by ICdesign
12-23-2010 8:58 AM


Re: "I never engaged in this kind of thing before..."
May I sincerely wish each and every one of you a very Merry Christmas !!!
Happy hijacked pagan holiday to you too.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by ICdesign, posted 12-23-2010 8:58 AM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 5:08 PM Theodoric has not replied

Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 389 of 391 (597717)
12-23-2010 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by ICdesign
12-23-2010 8:58 AM


Merry Christmas
Cheers and a happy new year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by ICdesign, posted 12-23-2010 8:58 AM ICdesign has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 390 of 391 (597728)
12-23-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Theodoric
12-23-2010 9:28 AM


Re: "I never engaged in this kind of thing before..."
Happy hijacked pagan holiday to you too.
Veseli decembeer vsem
Happy december to all
I dunno about your countries but December is the month when our cops run out of places to put people till they are sober. And yes the whole month, the drinking slowly starts around the first and progressively rises to obscene leveled around the 25th keeps steady till the 2nd of January and slowly dies out around the 10th.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Theodoric, posted 12-23-2010 9:28 AM Theodoric has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024