106
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
« on: October 18, 2012, 05:29:23 PM »
That is not true.
Suppose my son were a serial arsonist. He has burned down many buildings. He is by all counts a wicked individual. He deserves to be in prison. Still, as his father, I might love in in virtue of his being my son. I still might love him as my son, despite my hatred of his egregious deeds.
This is not to draw an equivocation between homosexual acts and arson, but it is to demonstrate that one's acts, while related to his personhood, are not the determinate factor of it. Thus, I might still love somebody despite his actions.
For an example a little closer to home, it is certainly possible that you still love very much somebody who hurt you in a very profound and specific way. In a way that you can name. This action has not stopped you from being able to love that person.
Thus, actions are related to persons, but actions are not persons.
Suppose my son were a serial arsonist. He has burned down many buildings. He is by all counts a wicked individual. He deserves to be in prison. Still, as his father, I might love in in virtue of his being my son. I still might love him as my son, despite my hatred of his egregious deeds.
This is not to draw an equivocation between homosexual acts and arson, but it is to demonstrate that one's acts, while related to his personhood, are not the determinate factor of it. Thus, I might still love somebody despite his actions.
For an example a little closer to home, it is certainly possible that you still love very much somebody who hurt you in a very profound and specific way. In a way that you can name. This action has not stopped you from being able to love that person.
Thus, actions are related to persons, but actions are not persons.