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.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Yes. According to my own views and current social/legal views(even in America), the dead do have rights.

Zygotes and fetus'(and many other stages of pregnancy) are not "people", neither is sperm or ovum. Until they are actually "alive" they are simply a part of the woman. The woman still has complete rights, including the right to decide what can or cannot grow inside her or what she has to suffer through or what suffering can be avoided.

You use the term 'alive' for a baby, but yet you don't require a person to be 'alive' to have rights? This is a contradiction.

No, a zygote or a fetus can be looked at two ways and neither of them are 'alive' in any individual sense. The pregnancy can be considered apart of the woman who is pregnant. The fetus can also be described as "non-living". There is a difference between the terms 'alive,' 'dead' and 'non-living'.

No, I'm saying that the most accurate and, need I stress it again, the most consistent definition should apply. This definition has been tried and tested against all forms of life and it is well founded and agreed upon scientifically and socially. You find issue in this one case (unborn children being classified as "non-living" or, for all intents and purposes, a part of the woman who may or may not birth them) compared to trillions of agreeable classifications of other forms of life by comparison to other "non-living" objects. This definition applies so completely to reality, it would be stupid to consider an English dictionary definition more reliable. I cannot stress the stupidity that such a decision relies on.

Well I will not do that. I have a recognized dictionary that defines life in multiple ways that can be applied here verses a biological definition that must only use the one that it cherry picks. I think I'll stick with the one that is actually supposed to define the meanings of words.

If and when you understand what cherry picking actually means, you will hopefully recognize that right now, you have completely screwed up the definition and swapped it. You couldn't be more wrong on this topic. The study of life and living organisms is called Biology. The English dictionary is a pursuit of the English language and how it is used by the populace. The vast majority of the populace are not biologists, they do not study life. Therefore, the more reliable definition would come from Biology.

Aside from the fact that the sources and the priorities you place on them are completely backwards, the definitions you may or may not pick to suit your needs are not consistent. The definition I provided is consistent. It has proven itself time and again in identifying what is and is not alive. That's why I'm stressing the major reason to rely on the biological definition is consistency.

Please, please, please explain how Biology came up with a definition for life if it did not use a previously established meaning for the word. Did they pull it out of thin air?

No, it was a concept many humans used since, presumably, our species first began. This rock is not alive, that thing that flaps and is in the air, is alive. Biology has obviously produced and refined an accurate definition that applies to all life forms and distinctly separates things that are alive and things that are not.

If the majority of the world are not Biologist then why does it matter what Biology calls life when the majority will look at a dictionary to get a definition?

Because Biology is the study of life, Biologists are the experts on the subject. If you want to know/learn/understand life on Earth, in any meaningful detail, you don't look in a dictionary, you either go out and study it for yourself or you read up on Biology in order to learn what other people, who have studied it, observed.

Like I said, you are picking one and only one definition because it suites your position. Use it if you like, but understand you are limiting yourself not me. I have a source that backs up what I say.

You have provided no reason to consider your source reliable. You have already agreed with me that the basis for your source is, "what other people say and think." It's not based on anything but opinions and common word use. Just because you don't understand that even definitions and why we use one over another relies on accurate sources doesn't change that fact. This is a debating forum, you need to support your assertions and putting your fingers in your ear and saying, "you use your definition, I can find other definitions on the internet and because they are definitions, they are all equal, for some unexplained reason yours and mine are both credible," isn't going to help. Do some research and get to the reasons why one definition is more credible than another and then show me, why we should consider your definition more reliable or even equally as reliable.

I couldn't care less what was said 50 years ago regarding this issue. You'll find inter-racial marriage was in huge debate in that same time period. Something we consider a basic human right these days. I am assuming you agree or do you think "non-whites" should not marry or otherwise perform intercourse with "whites"?

Men should be allowed to marry women. Period.

Agreed.

Of course I will, that's why I've been defending my position (imo, quite successfully) for the last couple of posts. The definition I have provided for marriage, which I have in turn stated is a basic human right, does not include incest, necropilia, pedophilia or beastiality as all of these things infringe on other rights held by the victims of the aforementioned "relationships".

Now I can't accept your definition anymore. You've altered what you said by leaving out certain types of marriages. Your definition excludes at least two acts that do no harm to anyone and a third that is questionable so by your own statements incest, necrophilia and beastiality should be legal. The correct answer for you should have been no you could not go as far as I said because I did allow for alterations or limitations to who gets to be married.

OK, I'm beginning to think you are being intentionally obtuse. Of course beastiality is the infringement of rights, other species of animal do not have the ability to provide informed consent. That is the basis of any right, you cannot do something to or with another person, or animal, without their informed consent, if you do, you are violating their basic rights. And before you jump in and say that, "by this definition, taking your pet to the vet is a violation of basic rights," you're right, it is. It's just one we, as a society, agree is OK because it is in (from our perspective) the animals best interest.

Informed consent is the big issue when discussing rights violations. A corpse cannot give informed consent. Other species' of animals cannot give informed consent. Incest is extremely often the result of coercion from a young age, which is in effect tainting the child's ability to generate "informed consent".

If you want to end this debate now, it might be a good idea, we are going in circles and you appear to be incapable or unwilling to show why we should accept your definitions as reliable and you just ignore what I write and state that what I'm suggesting supports necrophilia, incest and beastiality in spite of my clear rejection of the notion.

[kayky]

Ok, if a man has a son and a daughter and he marries his son to avoid taxes, is that fair to the daughter? If the man has no son and he gives his estate to his daughter, he has to pay taxes, because he can not marry her. Is that fair? Also, if father-son, mother-daughter marriage is acceptable, who will pay inheritance tax? Father's without sons and mothers without daughters, right? Is that fair?

What if an alien spacecraft landed in their backyard, and the aliens mistook their basset hound for the proprietor of the property? What if he inserted in the basset hound's brain a disk containing all the secrets of the universe? What if this caused the basset hound to have an overwhelming desire to marry his master's canary? What if this marriage resulted in basset hound-canary hybrids with extroidinarily high IQ's? What if these hybrids made the master so famous that he rewrote his will to leave all his possessions to them, disinheriting his own son and daughter? Would this be fair?

[Bust Nak]

You asked if it's a 'human being'. The correct answer is yes.

Correct according to whom? It's the incorrect answer according to many jurisdictions.

Actually it's not a person to many jurisdictions, but it is still a human being.

Is it? Not by my definition. And I have yet to come accross a definition of "human being" that doesn't list "person."

[Goat]

You asked if it's a 'human being'. The correct answer is yes.

Correct according to whom? It's the incorrect answer according to many jurisdictions.

Actually it's not a person to many jurisdictions, but it is still a human being.

No,it's not. It is not yet a 'being'. it is a potential human being, but it is not yet a being

[charles_hamm]

Whether you define the baby as a person or not is not relevant. The baby is still a human being and as such has basic human rights. Your ownership of your body in no way justifies your ownership of another living human beings body. As I said before, your example shows that one human being can exercise a right to deny another human being what have been called "basic human rights".

As a woman I find it totally relevant. Your attempt to define human
in the phrase "basic human rights" is most likely a reflection of your fundamentalist approach to defending the Bible as the inerrant word of God, which also often involves semantical gymnastics. I find this approach to interpreting either the Bible or the Constitution to be what is actually irrelevant.

I'm not sure what being a woman has to do with anything here. The definition of human doesn't change. The fact that the definition of human doesn't fit into the way abortionist want to think is not my problem. I did not change it to fit my beliefs, I just presented it as is. If people would really like to interpret the Bible or the Constitution then maybe we should stop trying to make the words fit our beliefs and see if our beliefs fit the words.

Really? Physical reflexs to external stimuli is not too primitive. Also why stop here. Go on month more and babies can already hear and may feel pain. You picked a time when you had the best odds to get the lowest number of actual 'human' type actions, but in only one month an unborn baby shows the same types of things a born baby does.

I grew up on a farm. When you chop the head off a chicken, it will flop around on the ground for a minute or two. These are residual physical reflexes. So, yes, we are talking about extremely primitive brain function.

Apples and oranges. You are comparing a human brain to a chickens brain.

Over 90% of abortions performed in the US occur in the first trimester. The vast majority of those performed later are done for medical reasons.

Cite your source please.

Kayky:
Is a fertilized egg inside a Petrie dish a "human being"?

You asked if it's a 'human being'. The correct answer is yes.

No. It isn't. It's a human zygote. And that's a far cry from a human being.

By definition it is a human.

[Goat]

Whether you define the baby as a person or not is not relevant. The baby is still a human being and as such has basic human rights. Your ownership of your body in no way justifies your ownership of another living human beings body. As I said before, your example shows that one human being can exercise a right to deny another human being what have been called "basic human rights".

As a woman I find it totally relevant. Your attempt to define human
in the phrase "basic human rights" is most likely a reflection of your fundamentalist approach to defending the Bible as the inerrant word of God, which also often involves semantical gymnastics. I find this approach to interpreting either the Bible or the Constitution to be what is actually irrelevant.

I'm not sure what being a woman has to do with anything here. The definition of human doesn't change. The fact that the definition of human doesn't fit into the way abortionist want to think is not my problem. I did not change it to fit my beliefs, I just presented it as is. If people would really like to interpret the Bible or the Constitution then maybe we should stop trying to make the words fit our beliefs and see if our beliefs fit the words.

Really? Physical reflexs to external stimuli is not too primitive. Also why stop here. Go on month more and babies can already hear and may feel pain. You picked a time when you had the best odds to get the lowest number of actual 'human' type actions, but in only one month an unborn baby shows the same types of things a born baby does.

I grew up on a farm. When you chop the head off a chicken, it will flop around on the ground for a minute or two. These are residual physical reflexes. So, yes, we are talking about extremely primitive brain function.

Apples and oranges. You are comparing a human brain to a chickens brain.

Over 90% of abortions performed in the US occur in the first trimester. The vast majority of those performed later are done for medical reasons.

Cite your source please.

Kayky:
Is a fertilized egg inside a Petrie dish a "human being"?

You asked if it's a 'human being'. The correct answer is yes.

No. It isn't. It's a human zygote. And that's a far cry from a human being.

By definition it is a human.

But it is not a 'being'. It is not a living , breathing human being. Therein lies the difference.

[czyz]

I am very agnostic and anti-religion but I must offer that abortion has ethical problems that I cannot deny nor do I accept. Aborting a fetus requires a medical intervention that stops a beating heart, destroys infantile yet functioning brain activity, and quite often requires the fracturing of bones or dismemberment of the body.

It seems to me that if an error be made, the error must be on the side of innocence and life. Doing otherwise is a callous and odious act inflicted upon our offspring and fellow creatures.

Infanticide is not an moral or ethical act in a society that upholds the rights and liberty of all members. Tangent arguments for abortion could be used if society desired enforcing euthanasia. Killing certain members of society can easily lead to killing others as the precedent has been established.

[McCulloch]

I am very agnostic and anti-religion but I must offer that abortion has ethical problems that I cannot deny nor do I accept. Aborting a fetus requires a medical intervention that stops a beating heart, destroys infantile yet functioning brain activity, and quite often requires the fracturing of bones or dismemberment of the body.

This is only true in the minority of cases. It would be best if all abortions were done as early as possible, before the formation of significant brain activity. This is one reason why I find that the the well-documented deceptions done by Christian Pregnancy Crisis centers to be despicable. They deliberately tell their pregnant clients that they are not as far along as they really are, giving them the illusion that they have more time to make the decision than they really do.

[czyz]

McCulloch wrote...

This is only true in the minority of cases. It would be best if all abortions were done as early as possible, before the formation of significant brain activity. This is one reason why I find that the the well-documented deceptions done by Christian Pregnancy Crisis centers to be despicable. They deliberately tell their pregnant clients that they are not as far along as they really are, giving them the illusion that they have more time to make the decision than they really do.

You did not address the fact that abortion does stop a heart beat and requires the obliteration of the body. Again, once one group is identified for approved killing the precedent has been set and its easier to select others for the same fate. One would think an ethical society would error on the side of the innocent and vulnerable.

[charles_hamm]

I am very agnostic and anti-religion but I must offer that abortion has ethical problems that I cannot deny nor do I accept. Aborting a fetus requires a medical intervention that stops a beating heart, destroys infantile yet functioning brain activity, and quite often requires the fracturing of bones or dismemberment of the body.

This is only true in the minority of cases. It would be best if all abortions were done as early as possible, before the formation of significant brain activity. This is one reason why I find that the the well-documented deceptions done by Christian Pregnancy Crisis centers to be despicable. They deliberately tell their pregnant clients that they are not as far along as they really are, giving them the illusion that they have more time to make the decision than they really do.

The earliest a heartbeat can be heard is around 35 days. The most common procedure in the U.S. is cuttrerage (hope I'm spelling this right), which includes the vaccum procedure. I'm not sure how early a woman can really have an abortion since she is not even considered pregnant until 14 days after her last missed period. I know that pregnancy test can detect it very soon after, but it would seem a little strange to me to go ask for an abortion based on a home pregnancy test. So even if a woman has it done in month 2, the heart is still beating.

Both sides use deceptions. I am not aware of the ones you mention, but I will believe you when you say they happen. If you look at abortion clinics, they get caught breaking the law all the time by these hidden camera pro-life groups so I would say that is more disgusting. The most recent I saw was a nurse actually telling a woman they would not attempt to save a baby born alive, even though that violates federal law.