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

And what correlates what is perverse and what is not. What is normal?

---

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

None of it makes sense to me.I knew a pub landlord who got very angry when two men in his pub were holding hands.
(Al Murray's phrase "I was never confused!" springs to the fore.)
But he would happily watch lesbian porn movies.I am sure he would have only voted against male same-sex marriage.

Whatever your worldview concludes is the case. In my case the reference is "What God says". Your worldview will conclude otherwise no doubt.I would have thought that obvious.

Of course you can't. Your worldview doesn't recognise God's order for things. My worldview does and so I can legitimately use the language he use. I don't mean to inflame but were I to use the word 'sinful' you couldn't even begin to understand my position.You don't see the normalisation of homosexual behaviour as damaging to society because you don't see it as perverse. If I were to insert some behaviour which you did find perverse, in the place of homosexual behaviour, then you wouldn't be asking what harm it would do society. And you, with your promotion of gay marriage trying to impose your worldview on the rest of us.*rolleyes*

I agree, I wouldn't be asking what harm it does to society - but I suspect that was not what you were trying to say. I think that eating shit is perverse - but I don't see what harm it does society.Just to clarify...
(e.g.) Paedophilia is perverse but not harmful to society: it is harmful to individuals.
(I won't describe the actual 'harm' as I hope that is obvious.)
The 'fear of paedophilia' (often spread by newspapers) is harmful to society - but it is not perverse.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Iano, the problem is that you haven't shown how promoting gay marriage is imposing a worldview. We don't ask you to marry a gay, to accept them, just leave them alone. Why is it so difficult for you? Do you really hate gays that much?

Another red herring. Nobody is trying to impose anything on you. Nobody is trying to make you marry a homosexual. Nobody is trying to make you accept homosexuality.I'm continually astounded by the arrogant Christian attitude that you have the right to make everyone else live by your rules and it's an imposition on you when others don't want to.*picks your eyes up and rolls them back to you*Oh, it's also rather amusing that about all you have managed to do is provide further proof for the central thesis of this thread; that the Christian myth of loving the sinner but hating the sin is bullshit.

---

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

That is the point. worldviews are just that, worldviews. One person's views on something can in no way be made to confirm to all. If you don't like something, that is your privilege, but it can't discriminate against others, when that worldview isn't affected by another's.

---

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

And you have not shown that same sex marriages "normalizes" (whatever the hell that means) homosexuality.And perversion is NOT a valid reason to ban some act. More nonsense. Legalizing same sex marriages does not impose anything on you. You are still free to not marry someone of your sex, even free to think it is a perversion and teach your bigotry to your kids.

---

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

The question in this thread isn't whether or not you can use certain language. It's whether or not that language is hateful.It seems clear that a worldview which promotes hateful language can also promote hateful acts - e.g. voting. You're just trying to legitimize the acts by redefining the language.

---

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

It's not (necessarily) hateful to consider (and refer to) something as perverse. You know that - yet bother to post all the same.?

A few points.1) The shape society takes is determined by the complex interactions of the individuals that make up that society. In so far as a particular worldview (on say the issue of same-sex marriage) combines influence to have their view hold sway, that view will hold sway. It is not true to say that my view can in no way be made "to confirm to all". It can - just as the worldview which seeks to display soft porn on the shelves of newsagents - in full view of children - has managed to have it's view hold sway.2) Your worldview would happily discriminate on the basis of an activity being harmful to someone. My worldview would discriminate on the basis of an activity being sinful. Sin mightn't produce harm in the same, directly correlating and obvious way that harmful activity might. That doesn't mean I should do nothing in the face of advancing sin. In my worldview, God isn't just the God of believers...It might be helpful if we return to the issue at hand, the topic of the thread. There's no point in going around the worldview houses - ne'er shall that twain meet.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Are you trying to tell me that the only motivation I should have for attempting to shape society a particular way is for the direct effect it might have on me. You mean to say that if I had no kids I shouldn't give a fig about the sexualisation of kids. Myopic.. I have the right to attempt to ensure society takes the shape I want it to take, for the reasons I want it to take that shape. Just as homosexuals have the right to do as they attempt to do.I've already pointed out that there's a difference between wanting a theocracy and objecting to the direction soceity is taking on certain things. I'll repeat it for your benefit.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You seem to be saying that unless I'm directly and personally affected by homosexual marriage then I should leave well alone. Am I to assume that you're gay andl desiring to marry at this very moment. Because if not..I don't hate gays. You conflate a desire to shape society in the way I see best - with hatred for those who wouldn't want it shaped that way.

Well, if you're going to try to shape society for the benefit of others, you have a pretty substantial burden of evidence to meet that your changes actually will be beneficial for the people whose rights your trampling all over. I've not seen that you've even tried to meet that burden, you've just assumed that it's in the Bible, therefore it must be good for people. Well, no, actually, you don't. It's called the "Lemon test", and its a form of the principle of the First Amendment, which is that laws should be justified only by secular purpose, not religious justification. Not if the reasons for your objection are fundamentally theological.