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.
Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?
Moderator: Moderators
-
charles_hamm
- Guru
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:30 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?
Post #1Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.- C.S. Lewis
Post #71
Biological consequences affect the society as a whole, so this game ends here I'm afraid. Two gay people in love getting married has no negative effect on society at all.charles_hamm wrote:
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.
Last edited by kayky on Fri May 10, 2013 4:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
charles_hamm
- Guru
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:30 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
Post #72
It is no game and whether an event has a negative event on society is not the determining factor here.kayky wrote:Biological consequences affect the society as a whole, so this game ends here I'm afraid. Two gay people in love getting married has no negative effect on society at all.charles_hamm wrote:
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.
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.- C.S. Lewis
Re: Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?
Post #73What you are not considering here is proprietary rights. As a woman, my body is my property. The government does not have the right to tell me I must remain pregnant if I don't wish to be pregnant. Women are not mere incubators.charles_hamm wrote:
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.
And the issue of personhood does matter. A first trimester fetus is not a person.
Post #74
Then please explain to me what the determining factor is--because I really don't get it.charles_hamm wrote:
It is no game and whether an event has a negative event on society is not the determining factor here.
-
charles_hamm
- Guru
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:30 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
Re: Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?
Post #75Yet you have the right to tell the human being inside you he/she must die. You do not have any proprietary right to his/her body but you exercise a right you don't have anyway. If you don't wish to remain pregnant don't get pregnant. I believe it would be appropriate to say that you have no right to tell the baby inside you it must die. Women are not incubators. A baby inside a woman is not a piece of tissue she can choose to kill either.kayky wrote:What you are not considering here is proprietary rights. As a woman, my body is my property. The government does not have the right to tell me I must remain pregnant if I don't wish to be pregnant. Women are not mere incubators.charles_hamm wrote:
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.
And the issue of personhood does matter. A first trimester fetus is not a person.
A first trimester baby is still a human being, which is what we are talking about here, 'Basic HUMAN Rights'. That is unless we now want to redefine 'human beings'.
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.- C.S. Lewis
-
charles_hamm
- Guru
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:30 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
Post #76
Polygamy-illegal.kayky wrote:Then please explain to me what the determining factor is--because I really don't get it.charles_hamm wrote:
It is no game and whether an event has a negative event on society is not the determining factor here.
Bestiality-illegal
Neither one has a negative effect on society yet both are illegal. This means that even events that do not have a negative effect on society can be illegal if they are deemed to be morally and socially unacceptable.
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.- C.S. Lewis
Re: Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?
Post #77Absolutely.
Until the fetus is viable, it is a part of my body. A first trimester fetus cannot think, imagine, or dream. It cannot do anything an actual person can do. It is only a potential personYou do not have any proprietary right to his/her body but you exercise a right you don't have anyway. If you don't wish to remain pregnant don't get pregnant. I believe it would be appropriate to say that you have no right to tell the baby inside you it must die. Women are not incubators. A baby inside a woman is not a piece of tissue she can choose to kill either.
Is a fertilized egg inside a Petrie dish a "human being"?A first trimester baby is still a human being, which is what we are talking about here, 'Basic HUMAN Rights'. That is unless we now want to redefine 'human beings'.
Last edited by kayky on Fri May 10, 2013 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #78
How do you know that? Remember, you are making a generalization based on the "self-evident" argument. How can you argue that "all" should have a right, but reject certain individuals because you believe no one would assert that right. Is that the definition of "self-evident"? Then I guess marriage between two men is a moot point in Iran, because, as Ahmadinejad says, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."kayky wrote: No father wants to marry his own son so it is a moot point. You are simply trying to distract from the actual issue.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Re: Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?
Post #79No, if it is not a person, it is a parasite. It has totally different DNA.kayky wrote:
Until the fetus is viable, it is a part of my body. A first trimester cannot think, imagine, or dream. It cannot do anything an actual person can do. It is only a potential person
Post #80
It shouldn't be.
Animals cannot give informed consent. This would be animal abuse.Bestiality-illegal
Why should gay marriage be "morally and socially unacceptable"? So far you have not been able to answer this question in any rational way.Neither one has a negative effect on society yet both are illegal. This means that even events that do not have a negative effect on society can be illegal if they are deemed to be morally and socially unacceptable.
