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]

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".

That is your opinion and not a fact. I can neither verify or dispute what you say here since I can't find numbers on how many countries allow it and how many ban it. It does not fall under the definition of marriage as marriage is defined as the union of a husband and wife.

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.

Do you consider the right to life a basic human right? If so then you must be pro-life and anti abortion. I use this example to show that basic human rights are defined differently by everyone. Everyone may have the choice and even the ability to do these things, but whether it is a right or is a biological inclination for homosexuals has never been proven. Please show why incest would not be allowed under what you said so long as both parties were of legal age to be married. What basic human right would incest violate using what you have said and which right would be more important, the right to marry who a person chooses or the right incest violates?

[charles_hamm]

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

Actually he's not the first to bring this up. Actor Jeremy Irons asked why a father could not marry his son if gay marriage was allowed. He asked this because he noted that by doing this they could avoid the inheritance tax.

I wonder if 50 years ago people said the same thing about gays. "No man wants to marry another man." A same sex marriage law opens the door to the possibility of other groups promoting their favorite form of sex to become legal. That is undeniable.

[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".

That is your opinion and not a fact. I can neither verify or dispute what you say here since I can't find numbers on how many countries allow it and how many ban it. It does not fall under the definition of marriage as marriage is defined as the union of a husband and wife.

Marriage is defined by some as, "the union of a husband and wife." A much more accurate definition would be, "the solidification of a relationship between two people with a ceremony and a celebration." Sorry to be the one to tell you this but marriage is not a term that exclusively belongs to the Christian fundamentalists(or Islamic fundamentalists), it existed as a concept and a practice long before any religion that exists today and will exist separate from those religions that do exist today.

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.

Do you consider the right to life a basic human right? If so then you must be pro-life and anti abortion.

Abortion (if done correctly) does not end a life anymore so than sex ends 50,000 lives (Majority of sperm do not produce fertilization and instead, perish). I do consider the right to life a basic human right, where that life begins it appears people disagree.

I use this example to show that basic human rights are defined differently by everyone. Everyone may have the choice and even the ability to do these things, but whether it is a right or is a biological inclination for homosexuals has never been proven.

It doesn't need to be. These people feel attracted towards members of the same sex and also feel inclined to then perform sex with and sometimes get married to those people. It is not an infringement on anyone else to allow them to do so. By default, that means that they have a right to do so. It's called freedom.

Please show why incest would not be allowed under what you said so long as both parties were of legal age to be married. What basic human right would incest violate using what you have said and which right would be more important, the right to marry who a person chooses or the right incest violates?

The right to a childhood. Incest is most often the result of coercion from a young age. Children are coerced into becoming sexually involved with their family member. Such an act is robbing them of their childhood. Children have a right to a childhood and to dreams and ambitions and to sexing up who they want when they're old enough, not being buttered up for their Dad or uncle or brother or sister or mum or aunt. Not to mention the genetic problems that spring from incest.

[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.

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".

That is your opinion and not a fact. I can neither verify or dispute what you say here since I can't find numbers on how many countries allow it and how many ban it. It does not fall under the definition of marriage as marriage is defined as the union of a husband and wife.

Marriage is defined by some as, "the union of a husband and wife." A much more accurate definition would be, "the solidification of a relationship between two people with a ceremony and a celebration." Sorry to be the one to tell you this but marriage is not a term that exclusively belongs to the Christian fundamentalists(or Islamic fundamentalists), it existed as a concept and a practice long before any religion that exists today and will exist separate from those religions that do exist today.

Marriage has also been defined by some as the union of two or more people. Why should I accept your definition of marriage anymore than I accept that one?

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.

Do you consider the right to life a basic human right? If so then you must be pro-life and anti abortion.

Abortion (if done correctly) does not end a life anymore so than sex ends 50,000 lives (Majority of sperm do not produce fertilization and instead, perish). I do consider the right to life a basic human right, where that life begins it appears people disagree.

Red Herring. I asked if you support the right to life. The only way to defend abortion and answer yes here is to redefine when life begins. This is the same argument being used to promote gay marriage.

I use this example to show that basic human rights are defined differently by everyone. Everyone may have the choice and even the ability to do these things, but whether it is a right or is a biological inclination for homosexuals has never been proven.

It doesn't need to be. These people feel attracted towards members of the same sex and also feel inclined to then perform sex with and sometimes get married to those people. It is not an infringement on anyone else to allow them to do so. By default, that means that they have a right to do so. It's called freedom.

A man marrying 10 women does not infringe on anyone else but that is not a right. The whole infringement argument does not hold up if you take into account that the U.S. already bans activities that don't infringe on anyone else.

Please show why incest would not be allowed under what you said so long as both parties were of legal age to be married. What basic human right would incest violate using what you have said and which right would be more important, the right to marry who a person chooses or the right incest violates?

The right to a childhood. Incest is most often the result of coercion from a young age. Children are coerced into becoming sexually involved with their family member. Such an act is robbing them of their childhood. Children have a right to a childhood and to dreams and ambitions and to sexing up who they want when they're old enough, not being buttered up for their Dad or uncle or brother or sister or mum or aunt. Not to mention the genetic problems that spring from incest

.

I asked if they were both of legal age to marry. Let's say the son was gay and the father came out as gay after the son turned 18. If the father never touched his son while his son was a minor then why using what you have written would that not be considered a basic human right? The genetic problems are not relevant because I have not brought up sex between two men at all. Sex between two people of the same sex serves no biological purpose so if we are using sex as an argument then we should address this point as well.

[instantc]

Do you consider the right to life a basic human right? If so then you must be pro-life and anti abortion.

Not necessarily, if one does not consider an embryo a person in its early stages, then it does not have rights of a person. Not every living organism has human rights, only persons do.

[charles_hamm]

Do you consider the right to life a basic human right? If so then you must be pro-life and anti abortion.

Not necessarily, if one does not consider an embryo a person in its early stages, then it does not have rights of a person. Not every living organism has human rights, only persons do.

This shows what I am talking about. Definitions get changed to suit the needs or wants of certain groups. BTW, it's not 'person rights' it's human rights and no matter what stage a baby is at he/she will always be human. Whether you consider them a person or not is up for debate, but the fact they are humans really can't be disputed.

[kayky]

Actually he's not the first to bring this up. Actor Jeremy Irons asked why a father could not marry his son if gay marriage was allowed. He asked this because he noted that by doing this they could avoid the inheritance tax.

I wonder if 50 years ago people said the same thing about gays. "No man wants to marry another man." A same sex marriage law opens the door to the possibility of other groups promoting their favorite form of sex to become legal. That is undeniable.

This is a common attempt at distraction for those opposed to gay marriage: it will open the door to incest, pedaphilia, bestiality, etc. That is why I dismiss it as a slippery slope fallacy.

[kayky]

But let's put this issue to rest. If two people of the same sex who are related to each
other want to marry--since there are no biological comsequences--then let them. It's a free country after all. I just don't see this becoming a trend, do you?

[charles_hamm]

Actually he's not the first to bring this up. Actor Jeremy Irons asked why a father could not marry his son if gay marriage was allowed. He asked this because he noted that by doing this they could avoid the inheritance tax.

I wonder if 50 years ago people said the same thing about gays. "No man wants to marry another man." A same sex marriage law opens the door to the possibility of other groups promoting their favorite form of sex to become legal. That is undeniable.

This is a common attempt at distraction for those opposed to gay marriage: it will open the door to incest, pedaphilia, bestiality, etc. That is why I dismiss it as a slippery slope fallacy.

It's a valid question. It seems as though people who support gay marriage tend to avoid the question in order not to deal with the inevitable answer.

[charles_hamm]

But let's put this issue to rest. If two people of the same sex who are related to each
other want to marry--since there are no biological comsequences--then let them. It's a free country after all. I just don't see this becoming a trend, do you?

No actually it's not completely a free country. The next part of the equation is when does it become legal for a mother and son to marry. Can biological consequences be discarded because they interfere with a moms right to marry whomever she wants too? Whether it becomes a trend or not doesn't matter. The possibility that it can happen must be taken into consideration.