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.

[bluethread]

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.

Then it is self evident that if a man has a right to marry a woman, then a father has the right marry his son, right?

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

Your failure to acknowledge it as a basic human right does not change the fact that it is. It is recognized as a basic human right by a growing number of countries and a massive number of the human population, that is also growing. It does not violate any effective laws in any first world country that I'm aware of and it falls under the definition of, "marriage" used in just about every country and by just about every person, that includes the people who shout and scream that it is wrong to call what gays do "marriage".

I don't know what you think "basic human rights" are, but marriage is certainly one of them. Every person has the right, and the biological inclination, to form a relationship with the person they love, and, if they so choose, to solidify that relationship with a ceremony and celebration of that relationship. It being free of coercion(incest) and force(rape) is a given fact as both of those things violate other basic human rights.

[kayky]

Then it is self evident that if a man has a right to marry a woman, then a father has the right marry his son, right?

The old slippery slope? First find me a father who wants to marry his son. Then we'll talk about it like it actually has relevance to the subject.

[bluethread]

Then it is self evident that if a man has a right to marry a woman, then a father has the right marry his son, right?

The old slippery slope? First find me a father who wants to marry his son. Then we'll talk about it like it actually has relevance to the subject.

No slippery slope. I am using your precise definition. "If one individual has the right to marry the person of his choice, then all individuals have that right. It's just that simple." As you say, it is just that simple.

[kayky]

No father wants to marry his own son so it is a moot point. You are simply trying to distract from the actual issue.

[JohnPaul]

No father wants to marry his own son so it is a moot point. You are simply trying to distract from the actual issue.

How about marrying his dog or cat? I would draw the line at goldfish!!

[Baz]

[Replying to post 44 by charles_hamm]


What good law is and should be, is I suppose a matter of opinion.
In my opinion our laws should be a force for good, as such they should so far as possible, prevent people from harming others.
They should not differentiate between one person and another for any reason, protect liberty and property.
To protect our society’s we should do our best to uphold our laws but we should not loose site of the fact that they are our laws and as we grow and learn our laws should reflect our understanding.

Not all law is good; in fact history shows that a lot of our laws have been deplorable.

My point being, uphold the law by all means but strive for justice.





.

[Baz]

[Replying to post 56 by JohnPaul]


BTW
I have some very pretty gold fish...




.

[charles_hamm]

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.

No it is not a 'self-evident truth'! If it were there would be no discussion over it and it would have always been legal. You can state it anyway you like, but everytime you do I will call it out as opinion only (when you are replying to my postings).
So far no one has shown it to be a right.

[charles_hamm]

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 amendment. Once it is ratified, ALL states must follow it.

The court's job is to is use the Constitution to determine if laws violate it and if the court even has the right to overturn the law.

Yep once an amendment is ratified ALL states must follow it. The problem is the breakdown of state laws does not favor any sort of amendment being ratified. Here's why:

You need 33 states to vote "yes" to ratify an amendment.
11 states have state constitutional amendments ALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGES.

19 states have state constitutional amendments BANNING ALL forms of same sex unions.

5 states have state constitutional amendments BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGES ONLY.

7 states have state statutes that BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

1 neither prohibits nor recognizes same sex marriage (not sure how that works).

7 states are in court trying to determine the status of laws either supporting or banning it.

If you assume a same sex marriage amendment wins in the 11 that already allow it, the 1 that is neutral and the 7 that are in court that only gives it 19 yes votes and it's defeated. Even if we assume that the 7 states with state statutes vote yes, that is still only 26 votes. If we really go out on a limb and assume that the states that only ban same sex marriage in their constitution decide to change their constitution and vote yes that is STILL only 31 votes. The bottom line is the amendment fails to gain enough votes, even assuming some states are willing to change their minds. An amendment banning it would have a better chance of being ratified from a numbers standpoint.