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]

Then

No tactic, I am just check for consistency. Yes, I did miss where you said that. If that is the case, I don't know why you spoke of it being a moot point. Be that as it may, for the sake of consistency, are you opposed to the inheritance tax, the marriage exemption or both?

I am not opposed to people who marry for financial reasons. It happens all the time.

Then you do think that only people who can't or won't find someone to marry should pay inheritance tax?

[kayky]

Then you do think that only people who can't or won't find someone to marry should pay inheritance tax?

Spouses are exempt, I take it? I'm not a tax expert. If you have a point, I wish you'd just make it.

[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.

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.

This is just silly, of course it can. According to your logic, human rights of women only concern adults, since technically non-adults are not women.

Regardless that they are called 'human rights', if you look at the definitive provisions of any human rights treaties or the respective national laws, you will find that only living persons can have human rights. So the relevant question is at what stage does an embryo become a person.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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?

Because the definition I provided encompasses all other definitions. Yours and the polygamists. Given that words are subjective, when discussing a topic as broad as, "marriage" it would be beneficial to the discussion to use the definition that best describes the entirety of that topic, lest confusion ensue and we talk about four different types of marriage while trying to discuss one.

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.

Actually, the definition of life does not include an embryo or quite a bit of the pregnancy. So it is the "pro-lifers" that redefine the word "life".[ref] (if you are unsure, embryo, and several other stages of an unborn human, are not capable of responding to stimuli and are therefore not actually 'alive' as per the definition of life).

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.

What the U.S. does or does not do is an appalling basis for judgement. From what I understand many U.S citizens and many Christians the world round agree that the U.S is not a good place to start regarding how people should or should not act and what people should or should not be allowed to do. I have no problem regarding polygamy as long as it is completely consensual. if ten men want to marry one woman and are happy with that setup (and she is too) who am I to argue? Same goes with women to men.

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.

Coercion starts young, even if the sexy time doesn't begin until they're over 18. It's also abuse of power, parents hold a position of power over their children, to engage in that kind of relationship with them is an abuse of that power.

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?

As I said before, coercion starts young. "Touching" does not have to be a part of the coercion. Also the abuse of power.

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.

What kind of a point is that? Sex with any infertile person doesn't serve any "biological purpose"(whatever that means). Should we prevent people that cannot produce children from getting married as well?

I think there's something we need to get straight here, how do you define, "a basic human right?" I have made my definition clear, I think, so since you think I'm wrong, what would you define it as? How does your definition exclude, "the right to solidify your relationship with another person with a ceremony and a celebration." Listing off rights we have and don't have is pointless, the way to go about this would be to describe what it is that makes something, "a basic human right" or not, "a basic human right."

[kayky]

FilthyTugboat:
Coercion starts young, even if the sexy time doesn't begin until they're over 18. It's also abuse of power, parents hold a position of power over their children, to engage in that kind of relationship with them is an abuse of that power.

This is an excellent point and one I will remember the next time I am confronted with silly questions from the anti-gay marriage crowd--questions only meant to distract from the issue at hand.

[charles_hamm]

Then you show right here why one person has the right to tell someone else what is and is not allowable. You just confirmed my right to deny gays the ability to marry.

A first trimester fetus is not a person. My ownership of my own body takes precedent over any "rights" you imagine the fetus to have. So no. It doesn't give you permission to deny marriage rights to gays, who without doubt are actual persons.

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".

During the second month of development the brain begins to make all the connections necessary for eveything you just described, so please prove that they can't do any of that.

This is from the Dana Foundation, a brain research institute:

Development of the fetal brain: These five drawings chart the development of the fetal brain. They are not to scale—at 4 weeks, the fetal brain is not much bigger than a grain of salt; at 7 weeks, it measures barely a quarter inch. As the brain grows, it begins to develop the characteristic folds as it expands to fill the cranium.


MILESTONES IN DEVELOPMENT

Scientists have studied prenatal brain growth in two main ways. By examining fetuses that did not survive until birth, they learned about the anatomical changes that take place at different stages of human development. Researchers have also conducted experiments in animals, particularly in monkeys (whose brains most resemble those of people), to learn more about normal development and what can disrupt it. Today it is also possible to use imaging technology, while a child is still a fetus in the womb, to examine the developing brain.

With these methods, we have a good picture of how a fetus normally develops. It takes about 38 weeks for a single fertilized egg to grow into a baby. Pinpointing the exact date of conception is often difficult, however, so pregnancy is most often said to last for 40 weeks from the date of the woman’s last period. The timeline below shows how your baby’s brain develops during the various months of pregnancy.

MONTH 1

BRAIN: A preliminary structure known as the neural tube forms. Part of this eventually becomes the spinal cord, and the other part the brain.

MONTH 2

BRAIN: The major structures of the brain begin to form, including the cerebral cortex. As the brain grows, the embryo’s head begins to look

MONTH 3

BRAIN: The brain continues to grow new cells and make connections between those already in place. The fetus develops physical reflexes.


This is obviously the description of a brain too primitive to actually think.

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.

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

Good one you got me... no wait you didn't. Is it a human egg fertilized by human sperm? If so then yes it is classified as a human being.

Unless it is successfully implanted in the uterus of a woman, it has no hope of being anything at all.

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

[charles_hamm]

It is illegal so it demonstrates our ability stop actions that are not morally or socially acceptable. So you are telling me animals have more rights than a baby growing inside you? That speaks volumes about the lack of morals in the U.S. today.

I've answered it everytime. You refuse to accept the answers as 'rational' per your standards.

No. You just repeat that we have the right to make actions we deem immoral or socially unacceptable illegal, but you won't explain why you think gay marriage is immoral or socially unacceptable. If you have, please point to the post where you do so. Otherwise you should answer the question.

I've already stated multiple times that gay marriage is immoral based upon my Biblical principals. You didn't like that but it doesn't change the fact that I answered. The fact that it is socially unacceptable is demonstrated by the number of states where it is illegal.

[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.

This is just silly, of course it can. According to your logic, human rights of women only concern adults, since technically non-adults are not women.

Regardless that they are called 'human rights', if you look at the definitive provisions of any human rights treaties or the respective national laws, you will find that only living persons can have human rights. So the relevant question is at what stage does an embryo become a person.

No it's not in any way silly. They are 'human rights' not 'person rights'. It is a 'human being' from conception. If it's not human, then the woman has been impregnated by something other than a human.

Not true at all. Many states extend rights unborn babies. That's why Gosnell is on trial in PA. Also this is why some states prosecute a crime where a mother and her unborn baby are killed as a double homicide. The state extends the right of a person to the baby.

[charles_hamm]

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?

Because the definition I provided encompasses all other definitions. Yours and the polygamists. Given that words are subjective, when discussing a topic as broad as, "marriage" it would be beneficial to the discussion to use the definition that best describes the entirety of that topic, lest confusion ensue and we talk about four different types of marriage while trying to discuss one.

By your definition there are no limits on what constitutes a marriage. Necrophilia, Polygamy, etc. would all be legal forms of marriage here.

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.

Actually, the definition of life does not include an embryo or quite a bit of the pregnancy. So it is the "pro-lifers" that redefine the word "life".[ref] (if you are unsure, embryo, and several other stages of an unborn human, are not capable of responding to stimuli and are therefore not actually 'alive' as per the definition of life).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life

Life as defined by the dictionary. Life has 20 meanings according to Merriam-Webster so we can't cherry pick which one fits here. It doesn't work. Responding to stimuli is only ONE part of ONE definition for life.

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.

What the U.S. does or does not do is an appalling basis for judgement. From what I understand many U.S citizens and many Christians the world round agree that the U.S is not a good place to start regarding how people should or should not act and what people should or should not be allowed to do. I have no problem regarding polygamy as long as it is completely consensual. if ten men want to marry one woman and are happy with that setup (and she is too) who am I to argue? Same goes with women to men.

If you can't argue against polygamy, then who are you to argue against incest. My point is in the U.S. we do have the right to stop someone from doing something whether it infringes on a so-called right or not.

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.

Coercion starts young, even if the sexy time doesn't begin until they're over 18. It's also abuse of power, parents hold a position of power over their children, to engage in that kind of relationship with them is an abuse of that power.

You are avoiding the question. It's a hard question because of your stance on marriage. Try to leave out coercion because you can't prove that every case would involve that.

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?

As I said before, coercion starts young. "Touching" does not have to be a part of the coercion. Also the abuse of power.

You still haven't answered the question. You are trying to justify your position by saying something that MAY OR MAY NOT have happened. If you assume coercion did not happen then you can't deny them a basic human right can you?

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.

What kind of a point is that? Sex with any infertile person doesn't serve any "biological purpose"(whatever that means). Should we prevent people that cannot produce children from getting married as well?

Biological purposes is reproduction. This is why I never brought it up. It's not relevant to any point I made. Sex between two males is going to be the same whether incestual or not.

I think there's something we need to get straight here, how do you define, "a basic human right?" I have made my definition clear, I think, so since you think I'm wrong, what would you define it as? How does your definition exclude, "the right to solidify your relationship with another person with a ceremony and a celebration." Listing off rights we have and don't have is pointless, the way to go about this would be to describe what it is that makes something, "a basic human right" or not, "a basic human right."

If something is a basic human right, then it is a basic human right regardless of the situation. That is the easiest and I believe the best definition.

[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.