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]

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.

You can say it anyway you like, but the bottom line is the opinions of the majority form the laws society lives by. If the minority, who would necessarily have lost the vote to change those laws under this scenario, can simply say 'not fair' and have the laws changed, then that removes the right of the majority to make any laws that reflect their will. If so then the rights of the minority DO trumph the rights of the majority and you get nothing more than a society that bows down to any groups who thinks that their rights have been somehow violated.

[Bust Nak]

You can say it anyway you like, but the bottom line is the opinions of the majority form the laws society lives by. If the minority, who would necessarily have lost the vote to change those laws under this scenario, can simply say 'not fair' and have the laws changed, then that removes the right of the majority to make any laws that reflect their will. If so then the rights of the minority DO trumph the rights of the majority and you get nothing more than a society that bows down to any groups who thinks that their rights have been somehow violated.

I would say making any laws that reflect ones will, is not a right. A majority may have the strength to force it, but it's not a right.

[charles_hamm]

You can say it anyway you like, but the bottom line is the opinions of the majority form the laws society lives by. If the minority, who would necessarily have lost the vote to change those laws under this scenario, can simply say 'not fair' and have the laws changed, then that removes the right of the majority to make any laws that reflect their will. If so then the rights of the minority DO trumph the rights of the majority and you get nothing more than a society that bows down to any groups who thinks that their rights have been somehow violated.

I would say making any laws that reflect ones will, is not a right. A majority may have the strength to force it, but it's not a right.

If a country, or a state or whatever, votes to ban same sex marriage, how is it not the right of the people who voted for that to have their vote acknowledged and put into law? If it is not their right, then what is the point of democratic votes?

[kayky]

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?

It sounds as if you are asking if it is possible to hate the "sin" while loving the sinner.
I think it is possible, but many people find it difficult to make the distinction.

Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?

Yes. You should be forced to show tolerance to the extent that you are not infringing on that person's civil rights.

[instantc]

You can say it anyway you like, but the bottom line is the opinions of the majority form the laws society lives by.

Maybe so, but the opinions of the majority are formed by reasoning of the most effective thinkers/speakers.

[kayky]

If a country, or a state or whatever, votes to ban same sex marriage, how is it not the right of the people who voted for that to have their vote acknowledged and put into law? If it is not their right, then what is the point of democratic votes?

Civil rights are not a matter for popular vote. They are protected by the Constitution.

[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.

You can say it anyway you like, but the bottom line is the opinions of the majority form the laws society lives by. If the minority, who would necessarily have lost the vote to change those laws under this scenario, can simply say 'not fair' and have the laws changed, then that removes the right of the majority to make any laws that reflect their will. If so then the rights of the minority DO trumph the rights of the majority and you get nothing more than a society that bows down to any groups who thinks that their rights have been somehow violated.

It appears that you are unfamiliar with how a vast majority of countries form their social constructs and the legal system that controls it. You are wrong. The rights of individuals takes precedence over the voting power of the group. In reality, sure the Christians can rise up as a group and quell this "homosexual incursion", might even result in genocide, it isn't the first time, they certainly have the numbers and a lot of them, if their talk is to be believed, would do it and consider it righteous. But they aren't doing this, they are trying to rob people of basic human rights through the legal system which is antithetical to that legal system.

Human rights are always upheld above the opinion of the masses for a vast majority of countries and, I believe, every single first world country. Yes, that includes America. If the public votes that Barrack Obama should personally execute one of the terrorists involved in the Boston bombings, he is not legally obliged to do that. That is not how the legal system works.

[Bust Nak]

If a country, or a state or whatever, votes to ban same sex marriage, how is it not the right of the people who voted for that to have their vote acknowledged and put into law?

Most, if not all democratic states have something like the US Constitution, which limits the kind of laws you can vote for. Hence I said making any laws that reflect ones will is not a right.

If it is not their right, then what is the point of democratic votes?

To exercise their rights to vote for those certain issues allowed for by their constitution. Which may or may not include the ability for constitutional amendments.

[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?

It sounds as if you are asking if it is possible to hate the "sin" while loving the sinner.
I think it is possible, but many people find it difficult to make the distinction.

Actually, no my question is about the perception that if a person disagrees with another person about some think is a civil right, is it really hateful or intolerant to disagree. Also you do realize that while hating the sin not the sinner is possible, Christians would still be told to try to help that person stop sinning?

Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?

Yes. You should be forced to show tolerance to the extent that you are not infringing on that person's civil rights.

Show it toward the person or the act? Should homosexuals be forced to show tolerance toward a Christian who tells them they are sinning and will be sent to Hell for their sins (this is hypothetical of course. I am not saying who does or does not go to Hell)?

[charles_hamm]

You can say it anyway you like, but the bottom line is the opinions of the majority form the laws society lives by.

Maybe so, but the opinions of the majority are formed by reasoning of the most effective thinkers/speakers.

I can agree with speakers but they are not always the most effective thinkers
People can be like sheep sometimes and do not even bother to research an issue.