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 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.

The constitution does not say that homosexuals have a 'civil right' to get married.

[Iam]

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.

The constitution does not say that homosexuals have a 'civil right' to get married.

I don't know anything about your constitution but does it give heterosexuals a right to get married?

[charles_hamm]

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.

The constitution does not say that homosexuals have a 'civil right' to get married.

I don't know anything about your constitution but does it give heterosexuals a right to get married?

No it does not. That is granted by state laws. Courts have ruled that heterosexuals have the right, but it is not stated anywhere in the Constitution.

[charles_hamm]

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.

First of all no one has shown this to be a basic human right. Second our legal system provides us a way to establish laws that reflect the will of the people. If we abandon that then we have no need for our legal system at all.

[kayky]

The constitution does not say that homosexuals have a 'civil right' to get married.

If one individual has the right to marry the person of his choice, then all individuals have that right. It's just that simple.

[kayky]

Charles Hamm:
First of all no one has shown this to be a basic human right. Second our legal system provides us a way to establish laws that reflect the will of the people. If we abandon that then we have no need for our legal system at all.

The reason we have a Constitution and the courts is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

[charles_hamm]

The constitution does not say that homosexuals have a 'civil right' to get married.

If one individual has the right to marry the person of his choice, then all individuals have that right. It's just that simple.

Opinion only. This is not a statement of fact so please stop presenting it that way. The fact today is that no all individuals do not have the right to marry the person of their choice.

[charles_hamm]

Charles Hamm:
First of all no one has shown this to be a basic human right. Second our legal system provides us a way to establish laws that reflect the will of the people. If we abandon that then we have no need for our legal system at all.

The reason we have a Constitution and the courts is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

We have a Constitution to establish basic laws governing society and to state what powers are given to the government and what powers are given to the states. To amend the Constitution requires the states to ratify that amendment so the whole idea that its sole purpose is to protect the minority is inaccurate. States can easily choose not to ratify any amendment. I believe there are still 6 that remain open because they were never ratified. The courts job is to apply the laws established by the Constitution.

[kayky]

Opinion only. This is not a statement of fact so please stop presenting it that way. The fact today is that no all individuals do not have the right to marry the person of their choice.

It is a self-evident truth, and I will continue to state it as such. Just because a right has been denied does not mean that the right does not exist.

[kayky]

We have a Constitution to establish basic laws governing society and to state what powers are given to the government and what powers are given to the states. To amend the Constitution requires the states to ratify that amendment so the whole idea that its sole purpose is to protect the minority is inaccurate. States can easily choose not to ratify any amendment. I believe there are still 6 that remain open because they were never ratified. The courts job is to apply the laws established by the Constitution.

No. The court's job is to overturn laws that violate the Constitution. That is how it protects the minority from the thranny of the majority. And it only takes 2/3 of the states to ratify an ammendment. Once it is ratified, ALL states must follow it.