"Hating the sin but loving the sinner"...

[_moksha]

In many ways this statement of hating the sin but loving the sinner makes perfect sense, because it affirms our Christian belief that murder is unacceptable, but says we still should hold forgiveness in our hearts toward those who have committed murder - even if the civil law then takes them off to be punished.

However, when it is applied to a class of people who have historically been shunted aside as being less than worthy, I am wondering if a better analogy to the crime scenario might be hate the civil rights but love the black person. After all, both groups whom we "love" are accorded an acceptable status until they do something we don't like such as voting or getting married to the wrong people. Doesn't it rather put in doubt the contention of love or acceptance in the first place? Laws were enacted to prevent blacks from marrying any but their own kind, while laws have been written to prevent gays from marrying their own kind. Seems we would accord these groups the same rights that we enjoy if we really meant the love part.

.

[_Scottie]

The problem here is that by granting gays the right to marry, we are loving the sinner and accepting the sin. (According to the religion right, that is)

[_bcspace]

Gay marriage has never been about civil rights; doesn't fit any definition of it. It's been about the open practice of debauchery with society's forced acceptance.

[_harmony]

Gay marriage has never been about civil rights; doesn't fit any definition of it. It's been about the open practice of debauchery with society's forced acceptance.

Marriage is not a civil right.

[_moksha]

Marriage is not a civil right.

So no one has the right to marry?

[_stemelbow]

Gay marriage has never been about civil rights; doesn't fit any definition of it. It's been about the open practice of debauchery with society's forced acceptance.

If gay activity is debauchery, then how in the world is it not already "open practice of debauchery with society's forced acceptance"? How is society forced to accept the "debauchery" if they can marry but aren't forced to accept it if the exact same thing you are calling debauchery continues unheeded? It seems you have missed the boat.

[_bcspace]

Gay marriage has never been about civil rights; doesn't fit any definition of it. It's been about the open practice of debauchery with society's forced acceptance.

Marriage is not a civil right.

Amen.

So no one has the right to marry?

There is nothing stopping gays from marrying in any state right now. There is just no compelling reason (or civil right) for the state to recognize such marriages.

[_moksha]

There is just no compelling reason (or civil right) for the state to recognize such marriages.

Some States might want to honor the equal protection accorded citizens in the Constitution. Other's might want to pander to those hating the sin and not caring about any civil rights of the sinner.