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]

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?

I didn't see an answer to the OP anywhere in your statement so I'm not sure why you are asking these questions. I do believe however that my questions included both Christians and non-CHristians so I did not leave anyone out.

[charles_hamm]

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.

My point is that one group IS going to not have a say in the public forum because only one side can get what they want here. My other issue with what you have said is that by "standing up for the little guy, protecting the minority from the majority." you have decided that the majority no longer has the same rights as the minority. This is because you have now made the minority's right to do as they please more important than the majority's right to have laws that reflect the moral values of the majority. You have, in effect, said the morals of the minority are more important than the morals of the majority.

What keeps getting lost in these discussions is the fact that some group will loose their rights. Either the group that opposes the action or the group that favors it. I am saying that the actions of the opposite group can be called hateful and intolerant by the group that looses and by definition that would be correct. I believe that these terms are being applied only to one group in many cases and in reality can be applied to both (and that means they really should not be applied to either since both groups are acting the same).

[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.

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.

Marriage has long traditions and many people hold the institution in great value. Suppose someone claimed that from now on everybody in the Olympics should get a gold medal, since that wouldn't harm anyone or make the winners' medals any less beautiful. Equal rights and all, the losers tried just as hard as the winners in the end. I think the right way to respond to that is to look at the purpose of the Olympics, and similarly the right way to reason about marriage is to look at its purpose as an institution. I don't think anyone has a problem with same sex couples getting insurance benefits or other legal rights. Nor do I in fact think that the arguments against same sex marriage work, but I don't think that correctness of the liberal stance is self-evident either. Especially the equality argument is a load of trash, since we obviously are not going to let anybody marry anybody.

[McCulloch]

Marriage has long traditions and many people hold the institution in great value.

And, like it or not, those traditions have changed over the centuries. It happens.

Suppose someone claimed that from now on everybody in the Olympics should get a gold medal, since that wouldn't harm anyone or make the winners' medals any less beautiful. Equal rights and all, the losers tried just as hard as the winners in the end. I think the right way to respond to that is to look at the purpose of the Olympics, and similarly the right way to reason about marriage is to look at its purpose as an institution.

What are the purposes of marriage as an institution? And please, don't limit it to procreation, since that argument does not wash. My widowed mother will not procreate anymore but should be allowed to remarry, yet you would deny by lesbian procreating neighbor the right to take a wife. Why not? Is one of the purposes of marriage to firmly establish the heterosexual norm for our society?

I don't think anyone has a problem with same sex couples getting insurance benefits or other legal rights.

You think wrongly then. There are some who would deny same sex couples any rights. They are a shrinking minority, but they still are out there.

[instantc]

Suppose someone claimed that from now on everybody in the Olympics should get a gold medal, since that wouldn't harm anyone or make the winners' medals any less beautiful. Equal rights and all, the losers tried just as hard as the winners in the end. I think the right way to respond to that is to look at the purpose of the Olympics, and similarly the right way to reason about marriage is to look at its purpose as an institution.

What are the purposes of marriage as an institution? And please, don't limit it to procreation, since that argument does not wash. My widowed mother will not procreate anymore but should be allowed to remarry, yet you would deny by lesbian procreating neighbor the right to take a wife. Why not? Is one of the purposes of marriage to firmly establish the heterosexual norm for our society?

I think you are right here, procreation does not seem to be a precondition or any kind of factor of marriage. Perhaps then we could reason that the purpose of marriage is that two people who love each other can 'sanctify' or officiate and celebrate their union and commitment. I think this is much better argument than the usual shout for equality and choice, which immediately leads to unacceptable consequences to me at least.

I don't think anyone has a problem with same sex couples getting insurance benefits or other legal rights.

You think wrongly then. There are some who would deny same sex couples any rights. They are a shrinking minority, but they still are out there.

Well at least those people are not strongly represented in the debate, and rightly so.

Marriage has long traditions and many people hold the institution in great value.

And, like it or not, those traditions have changed over the centuries. It happens.

This is not much of an argument. Obviously constitutions, traditions and cultures change, but they still have great value to many people. Just because they inevitably change through time does not mean we might as well distort them however we want.

[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.

My point is that one group IS going to not have a say in the public forum because only one side can get what they want here.

That's incorrect, all groups still have a say, those views will just be disregarded because they are advocating that the rights of other individuals should be disregarded. Sorry to tell you but the rights of human beings comes before, is considered more important than, religious or personal opinion.

My other issue with what you have said is that by "standing up for the little guy, protecting the minority from the majority." you have decided that the majority no longer has the same rights as the minority. This is because you have now made the minority's right to do as they please more important than the majority's right to have laws that reflect the moral values of the majority. You have, in effect, said the morals of the minority are more important than the morals of the majority.

No, what I've said is that the rights of the minority are more important than the opinions (moral or other) of the majority. Just because the majority hates red heads, doesn't mean we can stop them from marrying their partner(heterosexual or other). Or do you think that the majorities opinion of sexuality, race, religion or hair colour should take preference over the minorities basic rights that apply to the rest of the populace? Of course you don't because it's moronic to suggest that any group of people should have that much power. Absolutely stupid.

[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.

Marriage has long traditions and many people hold the institution in great value.

Great and seemingly exclusive value. The arguments they use seem to religate all non-heterosexuals and non-Christians into the category, "cannot have a union which is called "marriage"." It is unimportant what value people put on this institution, it is not theirs to command at will. This is not a secret club that must be joined by paying an entry fee.

Suppose someone claimed that from now on everybody in the Olympics should get a gold medal, since that wouldn't harm anyone or make the winners' medals any less beautiful. Equal rights and all, the losers tried just as hard as the winners in the end. I think the right way to respond to that is to look at the purpose of the Olympics, and similarly the right way to reason about marriage is to look at its purpose as an institution.

I think you yourself put it quite nicely here, "the purpose of marriage is that two people who love each other can 'sanctify' or officiate and celebrate their union and commitment."

Why are we restricting this from homosexual people? Because some people only associate the word with their religion? So what? Let them do that. They don't care if Muslims or Hindu's marry according to a different ritual, why do they give a hoot if homosexuals marry according to a different ritual? And of course it will be a different ritual since the words "husband" and "wife" will not both be used, even if they do appeal to the same religious literature and culture. I don't understand why so many people care so much about preventing certain people using a word. Do they not understand that words are, by definition, subjective?

I don't think anyone has a problem with same sex couples getting insurance benefits or other legal rights. Nor do I in fact think that the arguments against same sex marriage work, but I don't think that correctness of the liberal stance is self-evident either. Especially the equality argument is a load of trash, since we obviously are not going to let anybody marry anybody.

Equality certainly plays a part in it though. Heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual or transsexual, we are all people. Why is marriage only legally licensed and recognized by the state for certain people?

[instantc]

I don't think anyone has a problem with same sex couples getting insurance benefits or other legal rights. Nor do I in fact think that the arguments against same sex marriage work, but I don't think that correctness of the liberal stance is self-evident either. Especially the equality argument is a load of trash, since we obviously are not going to let anybody marry anybody.

Equality certainly plays a part in it though. Heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual or transsexual, we are all people. Why is marriage only legally licensed and recognized by the state for certain people?

Not for certain people, but for certain kind of a union. I think that equality carries some value but it is the weakest possible argument. Marriage is a certain kind of institution, which promotes and celebrates certain values. If you want to throw the cultural and traditional aspects of it out of the window and maintain that it is merely a judicial transaction, then you are taking something away from the community. The real question to me is what kind of values it should promote and why. Although the answer is not self-evident, I haven't so far heard a good argument why same sex couples should not be included, since the usual procreation and biblical arguments can and have been easily trashed.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Marriage is a certain kind of institution, which promotes and celebrates certain values. If you want to throw the cultural and traditional aspects of it out of the window and maintain that it is merely a judicial transaction, then you are taking something away from the community.

The problem is that the people who argue that legalizing same sex marriage would do this are the ones actually doing it. They are claiming exclusive control over the institution and throwing all other cultural and traditional aspects of it out the window. They are seemingly the bulk of the Christian masses, they claim exclusive use of the word "marriage" and the culture/tradition that goes with it. They don't recognise marriages that do not comply with their religious opinion of marriage, most of them just go the extra yard for homosexuals because I don't know why. The tradition and culture that goes with "marriage" extends outside of the Christian community. The tradition and culture of "marriage" can be adopted by new communities that haven't had the opportunity to have their own culture/traditions before. As I said before, "marriage is not a secret club that must be joined by paying an entry fee."

The real question to me is what kind of values it should promote and why. Although the answer is not self-evident, I haven't so far heard a good argument why same sex couples should not be included, since the usual procreation and biblical arguments can and have been easily trashed.

I'm glad we agree. It appears neither of us have heard good reason as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to legally marry. And of course the only reason we need in order to allow the practice is, "because they want to." If there's no good reason not to allow it and the people who are actually vying to be allowed to do it, then we should damn well let them do it. They're gonna be enjoying the pleasure of each others company with or without this being legalized, what is being stopped by preventing them from actually getting married other than them being denied the benefits that others have?

[instantc]

Marriage is a certain kind of institution, which promotes and celebrates certain values. If you want to throw the cultural and traditional aspects of it out of the window and maintain that it is merely a judicial transaction, then you are taking something away from the community.

The problem is that the people who argue that legalizing same sex marriage would do this are the ones actually doing it. They are claiming exclusive control over the institution and throwing all other cultural and traditional aspects of it out the window. They are seemingly the bulk of the Christian masses, they claim exclusive use of the word "marriage" and the culture/tradition that goes with it. They don't recognise marriages that do not comply with their religious opinion of marriage

I fully agree with this.