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.

[kayky]

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."

Did you miss my post where I said related people of the same sex should be allowed to marry? So you're going to have to come up with a new tactic.

[kayky]

No, if it is not a person, it is a parasite. It has totally different DNA.

Yes. It does fit the definition of parasite.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 1 by charles_hamm]

Intolerance would require an active unwillingness to respect others ideas, views, opinions, or behaviors. A good example would be the Westborough Baptist Church. They are intolerant. If a person says homosexuality is a sin and that causes their relationship with homosexuals to be in conflict, that is intolerance.

"You are a homosexual, stay away from me!" That is intolerance. "Homosexuality is a sin and you are going to burn in hell!" That is intolerance

"Homosexuality is a sin!" Not intolerance but can lead to it. I would say that this is the start of I tolerance when one holds this type of belief.

[charles_hamm]

Yet you have the right to tell the human being inside you he/she must die.

Absolutely.

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.

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.

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 person

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.

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'.

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.

[charles_hamm]

Polygamy-illegal.

It shouldn't be.

Bestiality-illegal

Animals cannot give informed consent. This would be animal abuse.

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.

Why should gay marriage be "morally and socially unacceptable"? So far you have not been able to answer this question in any rational way.

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.

[bluethread]

Did you miss my post where I said related people of the same sex should be allowed to marry? So you're going to have to come up with a new tactic.

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?

[kayky]

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.

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.

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.

[kayky]

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.

[kayky]

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.

[Nickman]

@Charles_hamm

Is it a human egg fertilized by human sperm? If so then yes it is classified as a human being

I would call that a fertilized egg, not a human.