Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?

[charles_hamm]

Recently on another thread the term “bigot� has been used frequently to describe Christian views on homosexuality being a sin. Per Merriam-Webster’s dictionary a bigot is:

A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

My question is not about using this or any other derogatory term against another person since that should not be done, serves no purpose in a debate and is against the rules. My question is:

If a person, Christian or non-Christian expresses an opinion that homosexuality is a sin (or if you don’t believe in the concept of sin replace the word with morally wrong); does that opinion constitute a hatred of the person, the action or neither one? Does that opinion constitute intolerance of the person, the action or neither? Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?

So we all can try to use the same definitions for the term, Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as:
A: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
B: the act of allowing something

If you say “yes� it constitutes hatred please list which one(s) it is toward and please explain why you believe it constitutes hatred. The same goes if you answer “yes� to intolerance.

If you answer “no� please explain why it doesn’t.

Just so we are clear, I am not labeling anyone as a bigot, hateful or intolerant or any other derogatory term. This is my first time to start a topic, so if I have left something out or could have worded my question better let me know.

Thanks.

[charles_hamm]

Yet... what you are doing is DENYING them the same rights that you give yourself. That's the key to it. Not all religious people will reflect your religious beliefs. You talk about your money... but it's not your money. That is just one big fat rationaliztion.

No, not all religious people will and not all non religious will support it. The point is someone will not be represented by the law either way. The thing is that some of it is my money. It's not a rationalization, but rather a simple observation.

After all, I pay for the services that Churches use, and mosques. Do I get to say they shouldn't be around because I disapprove of them, and they go against my beliefs? No. Same thing should be between you and homosexual couples.

Please tell me what services you pay for churches? Being non-profits they aren't allowed to make a profit so at the end of the year, the taxes paid and the taxes owed are usually $0. I've never seen one that takes government funding because that would definitely cause problems for their tax free status. Churches are normally paid for by tithing. I can't speak for mosques since I've never looked into how they work.

My tax dollars help pay for the roads the church can use, the fire department in case it burns up, the police it uses, in case there is a crime against them. That is the tax money I give that supports churches (and all 501c's for that matter)

That is completely different and here is why. The roads, police and fire department serve EVERYONE in the area. The church is not the sole beneficiary of their services. The services are there with or without the church. Homosexuals are the sole beneficiary of the tax breaks and social services given DIRECTLY to them. I have yet to see a religious building that had a police or fire department that only served it.

I disagree with the military and wars. But my taxes pay for it. You can follow your own moral values, and not marry a gay... and they can follow their own moral value, and not marry a straight person.

This is a good point and a good example of my points. Have you voted for people who would end the wars we are in? If so, you've exercised the very right that you would say that religious groups should not have, the right to influence public policy based upon your beliefs. Also doesn't society as a whole try to use their morals to set public policy? That's why we take all these polls to show peoples opinions on different subjects.

Yes.... but then again.. but.. that is a tangent.. The point is I pay for things I don't like.

It is not a tangent. It shows that society as a whole will vote based upon their morals to try to influence public policy. You will vote for what you think is right and I will vote for what I think is right. You will use your vote to try to influence public policy by electing like minded individuals as will I. That is what it shows and that would seem to indicate that everyone in society will display some amount of hatefulness and intolerance toward some group because they will vote based on individual morals which are not always shared by the entire society.

Does gay marriage harm you?? What harm does it cause you, or your marriage, other than you don't like it for RELIGIOUS purposes?

This is a tangent. My questions and comments about societal behavior apply to any issue, not just homosexuality.

It doesn't come down to 'I don't want to pay for their ' whatever, since they are the ones contributing the money to it.

This behavior goes beyond disapproving into discrimination and bigotry, IMO. It is not to the degree that I have seen others go, but it's there, never the less.

I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, but I can respect it. I would ask if not allowing religious groups to try to influence public policy is a form of discrimination based on religion? Would it be tolerant to stop religious groups from being able to vote laws into place that place restrictions on some groups of society if the religious groups legally voted and passed the law?

If I understand your opinion correctly it is O.K. for religious groups to not accept homosexuality, or any issue it finds morally objective, as long as they don't try to actually do anything about the issue. That would mean they don't try to influence public policy and they don't try to pass laws either restricting or banning the issue. Is my understanding of what you are saying accurate?

Oh they can do anything they want..However, if they try to influence public policy, and restrict rights against others that they grant themselves, they are being bigoted. They have the right to be bigoted and hateful. I am just pointing out where I draw the line between disaproval, and being a bigot and hateful.[/quote]

Does your statement apply to any group that does this, including non religious groups? If so then I think that all groups of people can be called these things.

[Goat]

Yet... what you are doing is DENYING them the same rights that you give yourself. That's the key to it. Not all religious people will reflect your religious beliefs. You talk about your money... but it's not your money. That is just one big fat rationaliztion.

No, not all religious people will and not all non religious will support it. The point is someone will not be represented by the law either way. The thing is that some of it is my money. It's not a rationalization, but rather a simple observation.

After all, I pay for the services that Churches use, and mosques. Do I get to say they shouldn't be around because I disapprove of them, and they go against my beliefs? No. Same thing should be between you and homosexual couples.

Please tell me what services you pay for churches? Being non-profits they aren't allowed to make a profit so at the end of the year, the taxes paid and the taxes owed are usually $0. I've never seen one that takes government funding because that would definitely cause problems for their tax free status. Churches are normally paid for by tithing. I can't speak for mosques since I've never looked into how they work.

My tax dollars help pay for the roads the church can use, the fire department in case it burns up, the police it uses, in case there is a crime against them. That is the tax money I give that supports churches (and all 501c's for that matter)

That is completely different and here is why. The roads, police and fire department serve EVERYONE in the area. The church is not the sole beneficiary of their services. The services are there with or without the church. Homosexuals are the sole beneficiary of the tax breaks and social services given DIRECTLY to them. I have yet to see a religious building that had a police or fire department that only served it.

I disagree with the military and wars. But my taxes pay for it. You can follow your own moral values, and not marry a gay... and they can follow their own moral value, and not marry a straight person.

This is a good point and a good example of my points. Have you voted for people who would end the wars we are in? If so, you've exercised the very right that you would say that religious groups should not have, the right to influence public policy based upon your beliefs. Also doesn't society as a whole try to use their morals to set public policy? That's why we take all these polls to show peoples opinions on different subjects.

Yes.... but then again.. but.. that is a tangent.. The point is I pay for things I don't like.

It is not a tangent. It shows that society as a whole will vote based upon their morals to try to influence public policy. You will vote for what you think is right and I will vote for what I think is right. You will use your vote to try to influence public policy by electing like minded individuals as will I. That is what it shows and that would seem to indicate that everyone in society will display some amount of hatefulness and intolerance toward some group because they will vote based on individual morals which are not always shared by the entire society.

Does gay marriage harm you?? What harm does it cause you, or your marriage, other than you don't like it for RELIGIOUS purposes?

This is a tangent. My questions and comments about societal behavior apply to any issue, not just homosexuality.

It doesn't come down to 'I don't want to pay for their ' whatever, since they are the ones contributing the money to it.

This behavior goes beyond disapproving into discrimination and bigotry, IMO. It is not to the degree that I have seen others go, but it's there, never the less.

I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, but I can respect it. I would ask if not allowing religious groups to try to influence public policy is a form of discrimination based on religion? Would it be tolerant to stop religious groups from being able to vote laws into place that place restrictions on some groups of society if the religious groups legally voted and passed the law?

If I understand your opinion correctly it is O.K. for religious groups to not accept homosexuality, or any issue it finds morally objective, as long as they don't try to actually do anything about the issue. That would mean they don't try to influence public policy and they don't try to pass laws either restricting or banning the issue. Is my understanding of what you are saying accurate?

Oh they can do anything they want..However, if they try to influence public policy, and restrict rights against others that they grant themselves, they are being bigoted. They have the right to be bigoted and hateful. I am just pointing out where I draw the line between disaproval, and being a bigot and hateful.

Does your statement apply to any group that does this, including non religious groups? If so then I think that all groups of people can be called these things.[/quote]

I will include any group that does this. The criteria is 'If you claim rights for yourself that you deny others, based on religion, race, gender, sexual preference, or social class'.

[Iam]

Recently on another thread the term “bigot� has been used frequently to describe Christian views on homosexuality being a sin. Per Merriam-Webster’s dictionary a bigot is:

A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

My question is not about using this or any other derogatory term against another person since that should not be done, serves no purpose in a debate and is against the rules. My question is:

If a person, Christian or non-Christian expresses an opinion that homosexuality is a sin (or if you don’t believe in the concept of sin replace the word with morally wrong); does that opinion constitute a hatred of the person, the action or neither one? Does that opinion constitute intolerance of the person, the action or neither? Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?

So we all can try to use the same definitions for the term, Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as:
A: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
B: the act of allowing something

If you say “yes� it constitutes hatred please list which one(s) it is toward and please explain why you believe it constitutes hatred. The same goes if you answer “yes� to intolerance.

If you answer “no� please explain why it doesn’t.

Just so we are clear, I am not labeling anyone as a bigot, hateful or intolerant or any other derogatory term. This is my first time to start a topic, so if I have left something out or could have worded my question better let me know.

Thanks.

So a group of muslims want to enact sharia in the USA, that would be fine with you? Or perhaps the hindu practice of having cows as sacred, that ok with you? Yours aren't the only religious beliefs in the world. Are you happy for the Native Australian creation myth to be taught in your schools as science?

[instantc]

Does gay marriage harm you?? What harm does it cause you, or your marriage, other than you don't like it for RELIGIOUS purposes?

It's not about harming anyone, the question about gay marriage is a question about the status we want to give marriage and what kind of union we want marriage to honor as an institution.

I think that you cannot justify gay marriage merely by appealing to equality. According to that argument I should be able to marry my uncle and my sister or both of them.

If you want to take stance on gay marriage on either side, you must give arguments about the purpose of marriage as an institution. There is no 'neutral pro-choice' side. Either you believe that marriage as an institution should honor same sex unions or you believe that it should honor only a union between man and a woman.

What it comes to the legal inequality of same sex couples, there is no reason we cannot give all couples the same legal rights through different institutions.

[Goat]

Does gay marriage harm you?? What harm does it cause you, or your marriage, other than you don't like it for RELIGIOUS purposes?

It's not about harming anyone, the question about gay marriage is a question about the status we want to give marriage and what kind of union we want marriage to honor as an institution.

I think that you cannot justify gay marriage merely by appealing to equality. According to that argument I should be able to marry my uncle and my sister or both of them.

If you want to take stance on gay marriage on either side, you must give arguments about the purpose of marriage as an institution. There is no 'neutral pro-choice' side. Either you believe that marriage as an institution should honor same sex unions or you believe that it should honor only a union between man and a woman.

What it comes to the legal inequality of same sex couples, there is no reason we cannot give all couples the same legal rights through different institutions.

What a load of rationalization and nonsense that is. You give a whole bunch of red herrings, and some slippery slope arguments, and you still have not provided a rational response.

[instantc]

Does gay marriage harm you?? What harm does it cause you, or your marriage, other than you don't like it for RELIGIOUS purposes?

It's not about harming anyone, the question about gay marriage is a question about the status we want to give marriage and what kind of union we want marriage to honor as an institution.

I think that you cannot justify gay marriage merely by appealing to equality. According to that argument I should be able to marry my uncle and my sister or both of them.

If you want to take stance on gay marriage on either side, you must give arguments about the purpose of marriage as an institution. There is no 'neutral pro-choice' side. Either you believe that marriage as an institution should honor same sex unions or you believe that it should honor only a union between man and a woman.

What it comes to the legal inequality of same sex couples, there is no reason we cannot give all couples the same legal rights through different institutions.

What a load of rationalization and nonsense that is. You give a whole bunch of red herrings, and some slippery slope arguments, and you still have not provided a rational response.

Direct answer to your question, does gay marriage harm anyone? Depends on what you mean by harm, would it harm anyone if I married my two brothers and my uncle? Perhaps those who put a great value on our culture and traditions.

Like I said the right way to look at this is not to play the equality card, unless you are in fact willing to allow anybody marry anybody they want, but rather try to reason about the purpose of marriage and give some rational arguments.

So I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, just pointing out that your 'equality' and 'same rights' arguments are a load of trash. Same sex couples can get same legal rights through civil union, they don't need to get married. These are not red herrings, these are my thoughts that I'd like you to respond to.

[Iam]

Does gay marriage harm you?? What harm does it cause you, or your marriage, other than you don't like it for RELIGIOUS purposes?

It's not about harming anyone, the question about gay marriage is a question about the status we want to give marriage and what kind of union we want marriage to honor as an institution.

I think that you cannot justify gay marriage merely by appealing to equality. According to that argument I should be able to marry my uncle and my sister or both of them.

If you want to take stance on gay marriage on either side, you must give arguments about the purpose of marriage as an institution. There is no 'neutral pro-choice' side. Either you believe that marriage as an institution should honor same sex unions or you believe that it should honor only a union between man and a woman.

What it comes to the legal inequality of same sex couples, there is no reason we cannot give all couples the same legal rights through different institutions.

What a load of rationalization and nonsense that is. You give a whole bunch of red herrings, and some slippery slope arguments, and you still have not provided a rational response.

Direct answer to your question, does gay marriage harm anyone? Depends on what you mean by harm, would it harm anyone if I married my two brothers and my uncle? Perhaps those who put a great value on our culture and traditions.

Like I said the right way to look at this is not to play the equality card, unless you are in fact willing to allow anybody marry anybody they want, but rather try to reason about the purpose of marriage and give some rational arguments.

So I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, just pointing out that your 'equality' and 'same rights' arguments are a load of trash. Same sex couples can get same legal rights through civil union, they don't need to get married. These are not red herrings, these are my thoughts that I'd like you to respond to.

So it's the word marriage that you are protecting?

[Filthy Tugboat]

Does gay marriage harm you?? What harm does it cause you, or your marriage, other than you don't like it for RELIGIOUS purposes?

It's not about harming anyone, the question about gay marriage is a question about the status we want to give marriage and what kind of union we want marriage to honor as an institution.

I think that you cannot justify gay marriage merely by appealing to equality. According to that argument I should be able to marry my uncle and my sister or both of them.

If you want to take stance on gay marriage on either side, you must give arguments about the purpose of marriage as an institution. There is no 'neutral pro-choice' side. Either you believe that marriage as an institution should honor same sex unions or you believe that it should honor only a union between man and a woman.

What it comes to the legal inequality of same sex couples, there is no reason we cannot give all couples the same legal rights through different institutions.

The problem with the nonsense that this argument always implies is, "we'll let them marry, they can have all of the benefits and intricacies that married heterosexual couples have, but we won't call it marriage, we'll call it something else." Why? It's weird that you're OK with gay marriage as long as it's not called "marriage". It's a position I don't understand at all. I'm glad you're on the same page as me regarding the issue though. Homosexuals should receive all the same benefits and legal rights as every other person, it's great that you agree with me on this. I have no idea why you would suggest we rename those benefits when it is, "a gay," who is receiving them.

Further to that point, it's a funny thought that we call it, "gay marriage." When a homosexual person goes to work, do we say they're going to their gay job? Do they greet their gay workmates every morning and suck up to their gay boss? Do they visit their gay doctor when they get sick? Or eat dinner with their gay parents every gay Thursday?

This separation between the same concepts/benefits/rights depending on who is receiving them is silly.

[Filthy Tugboat]

If a person, Christian or non-Christian expresses an opinion that homosexuality is a sin (or if you don’t believe in the concept of sin replace the word with morally wrong); does that opinion constitute a hatred of the person, the action or neither one? Does that opinion constitute intolerance of the person, the action or neither? Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?

Intolerance or bigotry would be, as has been stated in this thread, when one tries to push their view onto others. It's all well and good to hate red heads(gingers), you can despise them for the way they walk, the clothes they wear, the filthy colour their hair is. You can hate them for hooking up with that girl in highschool you liked a lot or that job you used to have, you can even hate them for just breathing, even if they dye their hair. When you start to restrict them from doing these things is when you become intolerant and/or a bigot.

After reading your debate with Goat, it has become painfully clear that you think the opinion of the public(whether majority or minority as long as it is shared by you) should take precedence over the rights, or infringements thereof, of certain groups within the community. Your main point appears to be that, "who cares whether they don't get the privileges we normal(heterosexual) people get? If we give them these privileges simply because they don't have them and we do, that would be the infringement on my privilege to vote what privileges other people should receive."

The point is not to prevent anyone from having a say in the public forum, the point is standing up for the little guy, protecting the minority from the majority.

[czyz]

The point is not to prevent anyone from having a say in the public forum, the point is standing up for the little guy, protecting the minority from the majority.

Very good statement. Although I favor gay marriage I would also fight for the right of those who oppose it to argue their point. My only caveat is that those who oppose it because of "sin" presumes that a deity has ruled on this subject without any evidence to support this belief. The bible is so unreliable in many things that its use as evidence is called into question. I would ask that people not use the sin argument as it presumes someone knows the mind of god which no one can claim.