Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 211 of 391 (597306)
12-20-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by iano
12-20-2010 7:25 PM


Re: reasoning?????
Assuming homosexual marriage is sinful
That is your 1st problem, an assumption. What your assmption is, is irrelevant to lawmaking. Can a murder suspect be convicted on someone's assumption that the defendant committed the act? You need evidence that there is something wrong with homosexual marriage, which, thus far, is not coming.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 7:25 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 212 of 391 (597308)
12-20-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by iano
12-20-2010 7:52 PM


Re: reasoning?????
iano writes:
If is not in accord with God's wishes it's sinful. Man + man is not in accord with God's wishes for marriage.
Guess what. Sexual activity happens even outside marriage. It is irrelevant in this case.
The issue is marriage, not what individuals do unless you are claiming that homosexual behavior is somehow different in a marriage than outside.
And guess what, YOUR God's wishes are also irrelevant in the US, thank GOD.
iano writes:
A privilege is sexual access to your partner with God's full blessing. not possible in gay marriage. A responsibility is procreation within the marriage - not possible within a gay marriage.
I've not the interest to tease out inane sidetracks such as "what about a man marrying an infertile woman". Thanks.
You know, I've read over several marriage licenses and no where in there is "sexual access to your partner with God's full blessing" mentioned.
iano writes:
If society takes something instituted by God with the purpose of establishing the shape of society per his desire then it does indeed become societies problem.
God dealt with the Babel Tower at societal level.
Fortunately, in the US, what YOUR God instituted is irrelevant, thank GOD.
iano writes:
As stated earlier, whilst the core motivation to maintain a ban on gay marriage could be based on Christian belief, there is no need for one's activity to utilise those arguments.
Except so far, you have only presented based on YOUR chapter of Club Christians beliefs.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 7:52 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 8:25 PM jar has replied

Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 213 of 391 (597309)
12-20-2010 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by iano
12-20-2010 7:25 PM


Re: reasoning?????
Assuming homosexual marriage is sinful and assuming homosexual marriage when it occurs would occur in society, permitting homosexual marriage would be propagating sin in society.
As I understood it, it is homosexual behaviour that you find to be 'sinful' according to the bible? Whether or not marriage is legalised for gay couples, they will still participate in this 'sinful' behaviour. Homosexuality is already becoming accepted and denying them the opportunity to marry won't change this 'propagating sin in society'. What it does mean is that two people who love each other can't declare a lasting commitment to each other. To go back to the golden rule, or simple empathy to give it another name, how would you feel if you were not allowed to marry the person you love?
Voting against gay marriage has no effect on the sin, but it does punish the sinner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 7:25 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 214 of 391 (597311)
12-20-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Taq
12-20-2010 7:58 PM


Re: reasoning?????
Taq writes:
I know at least two lesbian couples that have used sperm banks to father children. I also see no reason why two gay men could not adopt a child that would otherwise live their lives cycling in and out of foster homes. By allowing these couples to marry you offer these children legal protections that they would not otherwise have. How is this a bad thing
God's order proscribes procreation within marriage. Going outside the marriage doesn't fall within that proscription - which is not to say that God doesn't bless sinners through his general providence.
I can appreciate the utiliatarian elements of what you say but when you've signed up to the notion that "God's way is the best way" it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to begin ripping pages out of the Bible just because a sinful world finds it better to trust it's own wisdom.
Consider who it is you're dealing with (for the purposes of the point believe he exists). Do you suppose to know what's best for all (over the long run) than the person who put it together.
Man can't get his act together long enough to avoid boom and bust every few years - what foresight. What control!
-
In our society marriages are secular, not religious. They are legal contracts that have nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the couple.
Tell that to the secular couple - who see far more in marriage than mere legality. What society believes is the case doesn't make it the case. If God then marriage is his gig and society messes with it at it's peril. It can't be helped.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Taq, posted 12-20-2010 7:58 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Panda, posted 12-20-2010 8:31 PM iano has replied
 Message 220 by Taq, posted 12-20-2010 8:34 PM iano has replied
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 12-20-2010 10:52 PM iano has replied

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


Message 215 of 391 (597316)
12-20-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by ringo
12-19-2010 5:10 PM


Re: Before you rest your case ...
ringo writes:
Democracy is not an excuse for violating the Golden Rule.
This is such an idiotic statement I can't give you a pass on it ringo.
How can you possibly vote for anything without going against the opposing view.
The Golden Rule is entirely about trying to be kind to others in your day to day living. It does not mean we are to be weaklings and not fight for what we believe is good and right. Do you think Jesus was worried about the Golden Rule when he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves in Matthew 21:12?
If I see some pig beating and raping a woman I will beat his ass with a baseball bat if I have to to get him to stop. The Golden Rule has its place and so does being a man and fighting for what is right.
The bible says homosexuality is a sin that God condemns and I will battle against it on all fronts.
If a group of people decide they are offended with marriage between a man and a women they have every right to voice their view against it. The Golden Rule does not apply in this arena and
those of you who think it does are hypocrites every time you go to a voting booth.
I am really sick of this dumb discussion now so I am gone,
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 12-19-2010 5:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by ringo, posted 12-20-2010 9:00 PM ICdesign has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 216 of 391 (597318)
12-20-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by jar
12-20-2010 8:06 PM


Re: reasoning?????
jar writes:
Guess what. Sexual activity happens even outside marriage. It is irrelevant in this case.
We're talking about what happens within marriage and sex is one plank of it. I note that although automatic annullment through non-consumation is the case in only a few US states .. and Ireland, the fact that it is so points to the intertwining of the two things.
And guess what, YOUR God's wishes are also irrelevant in the US, thank GOD.
Not when US society contains people who work to shape society according to God's wishes. There are people like that in the US you'd grant? If so, and they are at work, how are God's wishes irrelevant?
-
You know, I've read over several marriage licenses and no where in there is "sexual access to your partner with God's full blessing" mentioned.
I wasn't talking about the piece of paper from city hall bit. I was talking about the institution instituted by God.
-
Fortunately, in the US, what YOUR God instituted is irrelevant, thank GOD.
How would you know that? You haven't hit 7 on the Dawkins scale have you?
-
Except so far, you have only presented based on YOUR chapter of Club Christians beliefs.
So what? The topic is whether or not the basis for my contra-homosexual marriage necessiates my hating gays. So far, the basis for my position hasn't indicated a hatred of gays. It's indicated a desire to shape society in a godly way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jar, posted 12-20-2010 8:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by subbie, posted 12-20-2010 8:32 PM iano has replied
 Message 221 by jar, posted 12-20-2010 8:34 PM iano has replied
 Message 227 by Theodoric, posted 12-20-2010 10:45 PM iano has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 217 of 391 (597320)
12-20-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by iano
12-20-2010 7:40 PM


Re: towards the topic
iano writes:
Society sinful is a society which attracts God's judgment. I've personal interest in keeping that judgement from societies door (in that I live in the society and could be expected to suffer that judgement myself).
Oh my! So your rationale for opposing gay marriage is to protect society from God's wrath? Does this mean that you side with Jerry Fallwell and his ilk in asserting, e.g., that Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans as a punishment incurred by the gay people in that city?
(Never mind the collateral damage to rural areas for miles around, and never mind the obviously capricious nature of God's wrath in leaving places like San Francisco and New York unscathed, not to mention the churches of openly gay ministers, which, given your apparent perspective, must be Far More Offensive to Him.)
Your "reasoning" strikes me as bizarre and patently ludicrous.
I've no desire to see society at large suffer either - though claims of altruism are about as welcome as a fart in a tent around here
Your humor is as bizarre as your reasoning. Discrimination against gays is a form of altruism because you are working against all odds to save us from God's wrath? A fart in a tent, indeed.
Oh, and I couldn't resist a remark on this point, from an earlier post of yours responding to crashfrog (Message 193):
I've clearly got an utterly different take on the Bible than you and those paths aren't ever going to meet.
What an utterly typical and routine outcome! This seems to be the normal result whenever two or more people discuss biblical exegesis: the forever-repeated battle among competing, incompatible personal preferences, with God on all sides. Absolute and immutable moral authority of God's word, indeed!
(Makes me wonder whether those gay ministers might really be true Christians, despite what you say. )

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 7:40 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by iano, posted 12-21-2010 6:15 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 218 of 391 (597324)
12-20-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by iano
12-20-2010 8:12 PM


Re: reasoning?????
iano writes:
God's order proscribes procreation within marriage. Going outside the marriage doesn't fall within that proscription - which is not to say that God doesn't bless sinners through his general providence.
Aahh...no children makes you a sinner. Got it.
I'll tell the Pope.
iano writes:
Consider who it is you're dealing with (for the purposes of the point believe he exists). Do you suppose to know what's best for all (over the long run) than the person who put it together.
Do you?
Or do you claim to know some passage from the bible regarding same-sex marriage?
iano writes:
Man can't get his act together long enough to avoid boom and bust every few years - what foresight. What control!
Thank goodness that we can't flood the world everytime we fuck up.
Your omniscient god: what foresight? What control?
iano writes:
Tell that to the secular couple - who see far more in marriage than mere legality.
Yes - far more than mere legaility - but no religion at all.
Love: yes. Commitment: yes. Religion: no.
What was your point?
iano writes:
If God then marriage is his gig and society messes with it at it's peril. It can't be helped.
Oh...I see.
God invented marriage therefore any marriage must be to god's rules.
I'll go tell the majority of the world that gets married but doesn't believe in your god. (Maybe some kind of group email?)
God didn't invent marriage and he has no impact on it's legal existence. It can't be helped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 8:12 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by iano, posted 12-21-2010 5:18 AM Panda has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 219 of 391 (597325)
12-20-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by iano
12-20-2010 8:25 PM


Re: reasoning?????
It's indicated a desire to shape society in a godly way.
Except you've yet to provide any evidence that your god wanted his rules enforced by law.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 8:25 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by iano, posted 12-21-2010 5:15 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 220 of 391 (597326)
12-20-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by iano
12-20-2010 8:12 PM


Re: reasoning?????
God's order proscribes procreation within marriage.
That's fine, but we are talking about US law that must be fair to everyone, including those who do not accept your religious beliefs.
The fact is that these families exist right now. They are a part of society right now.
I can appreciate the utiliatarian elements of what you say but when you've signed up to the notion that "God's way is the best way" it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to begin ripping pages out of the Bible just because a sinful world finds it better to trust it's own wisdom.
Nowhere did I ask you to change your beliefs about homosexual marriage. If you think it is wrong then do not enter into a homosexual marriage. It is that simple. However, your religiously based prejudices should not restrict the rights of others. You do not have the right to decide how others should live their lives.
Consider who it is you're dealing with (for the purposes of the point believe he exists). Do you suppose to know what's best for all (over the long run) than the person who put it together.
The relationship between a person and their creator should be left to that person and their creator.
Tell that to the secular couple - who see far more in marriage than mere legality.
Take away the legal protections and see how they like it. No longer can wives be put on their husband's health insurance. No longer does a wife have the right to visit her husband in the hospital if the husband's family decides to ban her. No longer do stay at home wives have some financial security if the husband decides to run off with another woman.
If the legal protections were so unimportant then people would not sign the legal documents and consider the priest's say so as the final word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 8:12 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 12-20-2010 8:38 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 236 by iano, posted 12-21-2010 5:12 AM Taq has not replied

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


Message 221 of 391 (597327)
12-20-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by iano
12-20-2010 8:25 PM


Re: reasoning?????
Did you say "As stated earlier, whilst the core motivation to maintain a ban on gay marriage could be based on Christian belief, there is no need for one's activity to utilise those arguments."
Have you presented anything other than appeal to the religious beliefs of YOUR chapter of Club Christian?
iano writes:
I wasn't talking about the piece of paper from city hall bit. I was talking about the institution instituted by God.
Thank God those have no value or relevance to the topic which is about the legal contract known as marriage.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by iano, posted 12-20-2010 8:25 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by iano, posted 12-21-2010 5:01 AM jar has replied

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


Message 222 of 391 (597328)
12-20-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Taq
12-20-2010 8:34 PM


Re: reasoning?????
taq writes:
iano writes:
God's order proscribes procreation within marriage.
That's fine, but we are talking about US law that must be fair to everyone, including those who do not accept your religious beliefs.
The fact is that these families exist right now. They are a part of society right now.
Very quiet now or iano might actually look up proscribe and find out what it means.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Taq, posted 12-20-2010 8:34 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Theodoric, posted 12-20-2010 10:54 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 223 of 391 (597332)
12-20-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by ICdesign
12-20-2010 8:23 PM


Re: Before you rest your case ...
ICDESIGN writes:
Do you think Jesus was worried about the Golden Rule when he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves in Matthew 21:12?
Of course He was. If He did something wrong, He would have wanted to be corrected.
ICDESIGN writes:
If a group of people decide they are offended with marriage between a man and a women they have every right to voice their view against it.
I've never said otherwise. The question here isn't whether or not you have a right to do it but whether you do it out of hate. If you violate the Golden rule to do it, you're probably doing it out of hate.
The Golden Rule is a rule of thumb to help you keep from sinning. If you don't want them to vote against your marriage, don't vote against theirs.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by ICdesign, posted 12-20-2010 8:23 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by ICdesign, posted 12-20-2010 9:55 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 224 of 391 (597335)
12-20-2010 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by ringo
12-20-2010 9:00 PM


Re: Before you rest your case ...
ringo writes:
Of course He was. If He did something wrong, He would have wanted to be corrected.
Wow this is like trying to teach a preschooler a simple truth here...Sigh...
So you think Jesus would want to be corrected in this fashion "IF" he were in need of correction then? I personally have never met anyone who desired to be publicly embarrassed and humiliated in this fashion.
The question here isn't whether or not you have a right to do it but whether you do it out of hate. If you violate the Golden rule to do it, you're probably doing it out of hate.
That's right, all of you have been judgmentally accusing me of hate when I never once made a hateful comment. I have clearly stated over and over I DO NOT HATE THEM.
I'll say it again. The Golden Rule does not apply in the voting arena. Hate of a person is wrong yes.
Disagreeing with an issue does not mean you hate the person. What is the matter with you people here?
The Golden Rule is doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Would you want someone to vote against you or the idea you are promoting? No you wouldn't.
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by ringo, posted 12-20-2010 9:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by subbie, posted 12-20-2010 10:12 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 230 by ringo, posted 12-20-2010 11:18 PM ICdesign has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 225 of 391 (597339)
12-20-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by ICdesign
12-20-2010 9:55 PM


Re: Before you rest your case ...
I'll say it again. The Golden Rule does not apply in the voting arena.
Of course, the gospel according to ICDESIGN: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, except in the ballot box." No, that's too narrow. I'm sure you must mean, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless you don't want to." Yeah, that's better.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ICdesign, posted 12-20-2010 9:55 PM ICdesign 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