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

So umm you think if you dicurage them long enough they will stop being gay ??? And they will marry the opposite sex and have your 2.1 kids ??? I do not think you understand what being gay means.

I'm at a loss to see how. You'd need to be comparing God to some external-to-God standard in order to suppose him a bigot contrary to his say so.No prizes for guessing who's the 'external standard' by which God is found to be bigotted(hint: there's whisky in it )

That's one view.. A shift in the nature of society can occur through monumental movement. Or it can occur in minute, step-wise fashion. Whilst agreeing that homosexual marriage in itself wouldn't result in monumental shift, it would be another step in the dissolution of male/female + joined for life idea of marriage.And if that is considered an important ideal by some then makes sense that they should work towards retaining that structure.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I've absolutely no doubt that this will be the case in many cases. I'd warrant this especially so in the U.S. - where Christianity appears to be bent on achieving a level of theocracy.There is a line between wanting to shape society in the way that you feel is best for all and wanting to impose your views in dictatorial fashion on everyone. It's not that fine a line in my view.- Societies task isn't to micro-manage everybody. It's job is to encourage that which it sees as beneficial to most and to discourage that which is see's as harmful to most. The way societies "view" is formed is through the effort of individuals who work to have their view become normative.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is something of the point I was trying to make. Thanks, frako.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I think you're wrong that "political correctness" is so bad nowadays. There have always been things that people have believed in their hearts but were not socially acceptable to broadcast generally.The only difference lately is that there's pressure being put on traditionally privileged and powerful groups to stop being such assholes to everybody else.In the past, the only people not able to say what they truly thought were the oppressed. Now there is social pressure being applied to the priveleged and of course the privilaged push back against this pressure.

The external source is the one mentioned in the Bible; man, humans. Part of our charge is to judge and correct God when God is acting immoral.We were given the gift of the knowledge of right and wrong to use, and that includes pointing out when God is wrong.As I said "Ah, I see, it would be based on God being the the Bigot instead. Got you. Makes sense now."

---

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

Is this your example?
Cause it it is the only thing in the post I responded to that even remotely resembles an example. As you can see from your "example" all you can give is religious reasons.

---

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

Self-evident, that's one of those phrases that people use for something they believe but can't prove or have no evidence for. Sorry, not evident to me.

---

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

Can you show any studies saying this is optimal? Also, can you tell us what you mean by optimal?

---

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

Here we are back to the rub. Seems almost circular doesn't it. How is gay marriage "harmful" to society?

---

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

Yes I agree. My point was that the costs of those minute changes to society are huge to the individuals who must pay them. The benefits are difficult to identify while the costs are large and obvious. Disproportion is the essence of injustice. I don't see any evidence that removing the discrimination against gay marriage will have or has had any effect on heterosexual marriage. The 'institution of marriage' is a construct. Marriages themselves are individual things that exist between two people and are, primarily, for their benefit alone. Society is a secondary beneficiary of the 'institution of marriage'. If marriage is beneficial to society then the right should be extended to all. Denying this right only serves to reduce the societal benefits. Rationalizations of this denial fail to account for the fact that the primary benefit of marriage is a cohesive family unit. Many successful families = one successful society.It is the fact that the marriage exists that provides the benefit. The shape and colour of the marriage are irrelevant.

In all the years that I've been debating gay marriage in various fora and with various people, I've yet to hear anyone explain this statement. Please tell me, as simply and clearly as you possibly can, how allowing gays to marry would change hetero marriage at all, much less be a step in the dissolution of it.

---

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

I'm not saying it's optimal - someone else suggested a) it was and b) so what if it was.Track back and you'll see the context

The you don't believe that male+female marriage is optimal?

---

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