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

Racial issues are attacking a person.
Homosexual issues are attacking a behavior. That is the difference none of you seem to be able to grasp.

You didn't the first time. You came close the second time, but still didn't. That's where you came close. You said you wouldn't expect it. That's not what I asked. I asked would you want 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

So, you're expecting homosexuals to bear a considerable burden in exchange for the rest of us having a society that is better, in some way.Does that seem fair to you? Obviously, the burden of our society is not going to fall equal on all. But I think equalizing that burden to the greatest extent possible, and shifting a larger share only onto those who volunteer for it, is a moral imperative. And I can't see how someone of your moral character, which I would describe as "high" despite not knowing much about you, could possibly countenance the notion that we should build a more Godly society on the backs of gay men and women. "Hate" is an imprecise word; bigotry isn't really hate, it's disregard. In the 18th and 19th century American South, some number of people - perhaps implicitly - determined that they would build their better society on the backs of African slaves, carted in by the boatload. I wouldn't describe their attitude towards "the Negro", as they would have said, as being one of "hate." But I definitely consider the moral reasoning you're engaged in, here, just as bad as theirs.

I probably would want it yeah. If was a rapist I would probably want everyone to tell me that was OK too. "Hey, I never really hurt anyone. If she is dressed sexy I have determined she wanted it".

Trust me, IC, no gay couple is desperately holding their breath for your imprimatur on their relationship. What they want are the federal and state benefits afforded to married couples. Even in the states where gay couples receive those benefits, people like yourself are perfectly free to continue to consider their behavior gross and their relationship a sham.You're not being asked to approve. You're being asked to stop obstructing the recognition of their constitutional rights. Indeed. But you're not being asked whether or not gay sex is ok. You're being asked to allow loving couples to marry each other. Voting against gay marriage isn't going to prevent people from being gay.

How revolting. So you are comparing same sex couples wanting the privileges and responsibility involved in the contract of marriage to raping someone.Well, we can see your morality clearly.

---

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

Where are the loopholes? Where does it say to be nice to only the people you approve of?Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't want them voting against your marriage, don't vote against theirs. That's pretty straight-forward and it takes a pretty perverse mind to argue against it.

---

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

You missed my point. You said: At one time our society decided it was normal and decent that marriage was between a man and woman of the same race. It doesn't anymore, things change.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

So you are asserting that homosexual behavior is not caused by biological / genetic factors, and this makes it different from skin color. What if that assertion turns out to be false?I'm not an expert in the field, but based on what I've seen, I suspect that, for some people at least, changing sexual orientation is about as realistic as changing skin color. It could be a matter of biology more than a matter of personal choice.And let's face it: homophobia and discrimination against gays/lesbians lead to attacks against persons. It's disingenuous -- actually fatuous -- to suggest that gay bashing is just "attacking behavior." In any case, the "moral", "ethical" or even "logical" foundations for gay bashing are no more substantive than those for racial discrimination.I think you're the one who has the poorer grasp here.

---

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

...and that's where your entire point falls apart.This is about "marriage," the beahvior you find offensive in this case would have to be marriage. No one is asking you whether gay people should continue to act in a gay manner. You are simply being asked whether they can marry. What you disagree with is two people of the same sex being sexually active with one another. Marriage of these two people should not involve their sex life though. So your point continues to be misapplied. The fact that you didn't use girls shows that you are just being homophobic. Scared of gay dudes. On their behalf I'll say, you're probably not someone they are into. So loosen your sphincter. If by normal behavior you mean, two people who love each other want to get married, then you are voting against that. Remember, this is not a vote about whether or not you approve of gay sex. You don't get it, we already approve of marriage. It has nothing to do with being gay, more so, it has to do with two people of the same sex getting married.Having gay sex is not what we are voting on, that is legal whether you like it or not. But two people of the same sex forming a union IS what the vote is about. So that is the question, "Do you think two people of the same sex should get married?" If not, why not?And again, like CS made the mistake of confusing it, denying them that right ONLY hurts thems. It is not a strike against gay sex. That will continue regardless of whether they are allowed to get married.So it is ONLY hurting the sinner.- Oni

Your moral imperative is one founded on godlessness. It's a pretty good moral imperative for all that - were there not a godly one to consider it would strike me as about the best imperative that mankind could assemble for himself. But in the face of a godly moral imperative - where what is moral is defined so as to find homosexual marriage sinful - your appeal to fair play falls flat.The prime concern according to the godly imperative isn't man-defined equality, the prime concern is holiness. And if there are consequences for society at large (godly and no) due to sin - then I've no issue with working towards the prevention of same both for my own benefit and the benefit of others who might not be aware.- The above might help clarify the position. You don't have to be a believer to see the basic layout:1) The normalisation of homosexual behaviour is believed to bring about a negative outcome for society at large.2) It is reasonable to take steps to prevent such an outcome, both for personal benefit and for altruistic reasons.3) The fact that some will pay a price for this is weighed up against the benefits. The price is considered worth paying.Leaving red herrings such as "it's not you paying the price" aside and resisting the urge to assert an alternative worldview "fairer" based (cicularily) on an argument which supposes fairer best-of-all, what is your objection(s) to the basic argument.

Show me in anything, other than in your atheistic, materialistic, rationalistic worldview that homosexuality is normal.When the discussion retreats to the point where this worldview is asserted better than that worldview then stalemate has been reached. Stalemate renders the OP's assertion undemonstrable.Game over?

It is a matter of biology, as fare as i understand it you have a 5% chance of being borne gay, if your siblings are gay you have a 25% chance of being gay too, and if your twin brother is gay you have a 50% chance of being gay too.Every one of us starts with the body of a woman in the womb at one stage the males start producing testosterone that changes the body and the brain, some believe that something goes "wrong" and the brain does not change to a "male" brain (or it does in cases of women), do to too much testosterone production, or too little.Studies on this are very young and we should know more in the future.

Look out in to "gods" creation nature and you will find 5% of the animals are gay so it looks pretty normal to me

Again, you are making this claim.When asked to support this statement, you started shouting "Off topic! Off topic!".Your whole argument is built on this premise, but you cannot back it up with anything.
You cannot even identify the harm it does!
Same-sex marriage is legal is several countries - there must be plenty of evidence of this "negative outcome" - but you have nothing.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.