By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - If you are against gay marriage, explain why without mentioning religion

 

Are you for or against gay marriage?

For 290 49.49%
 
Against 171 29.18%
 
don't know 16 2.73%
 
whatever who cares? 108 18.43%
 
Total:585
Michael-5 on 21 January 2013
Tom3k said:
Michael-5 said:
Tom3k said:
 


Unbelievable... You obviously can't grasp the fact that homosexuals are as viable to reproduce as any other human being and that they as fact reproduce. Not just within human population, just to make things clear. "Gay" animals reproduce as well. What mechanism? It's obviously that homosexuals aren't going to reproduce with each other... Motivation? As long as society looks on homosexuality in same way as you do, many of homosexuals will have a damn good MOTIVATION to stay in their tiny little closets, with fake lives and reproduce. And what you seriously think that poeple simply because they are gay don't want to have offspring?

Actually as recent studies have shown that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring.

"First of all errors in DNA replication are repairable" And you think I need to insult you? You do that just fine on your own... NOT ALL errors are repaired. What do you think how evolution works?  You think that DNA Polymerase is flawless, or that DNA repairs are foolproof? Get real...

I claim? Read the things you write. Because you obviously don't read those that I write. You CLAIM that reason for homosexuality is a "random mutation" obviously of genom since it can't be of anything else. Since 5% of population is gay wouldn't it be logical that this "random" (whatever that means) mutations should be OBSERVED among all homosexuals? 5% of population is a huge chuck and those so called "random mutations" should be observed if they happened. I have a bit problem with "random" though... Because this is kinda untrue... Since we assume that all mutations in genom occur with equal probability. Which is btw plain wrong, since we know that some occur more than others because they are "favored" by low-level biochemical reactions.

I for one don't claim that things you attach with me... On other hand you do. Everytime you use "term" random mutations, you claim the existence of gay genes. Or do you really think that if 5% of population is gay, they all have "different" muations? Whish is btw surreal... But also following your logic, if reason behind being gay are those yours random mutations, than being gay would be inheritable. Since each time a gay person would reproduce (which once again they do) would pass on his "genetic mutation".

LOL I understand homosexuals can physically reproduce, but unless penis goes in vagina, no baby. If you're homosexual, fitness is reduced because homosexuals have sex with people of the same gender.

You're arguing that the fitness, the reproductive ability, of homosexuals is the same as heterosexuals. It's not, even if they performed heterosexual acts, they don't have any sex drive towards members of the oposite gender. So any reproduction will be forced, and it should be obvious that if penis isn't going into vagina anywhere nearly as frequently as it would in a heterosexual population, then the fitness of that population will be less.

Do you understand that if penis does not enter vagina then no baby is born? Do I need to explain to you why homosexuals either have no, or very minimal heterosexual encounters which could result in reproductive success? Do you now understand how homosexuals have a lower fitness then other populations, or do you still believe that gay people are just as likely to reproduce as children?

If you say you aren't arguing that homosexuals aren't as likely to reproduce, then

a) You have been clearly ignoring my arguement because fitness is the measure of reproductive success, and you have been arguing with me that homosexual behaviour does not prevent reproduction. Homosexuallity damages the fitness and it prevents people from repriducing had they been having heterosexual intercourse instead.

b) You didn't read my original point before you began to insult and critisize me. My original statement was "However from a genetics point of view, homosexuality is disfunctional. There is no arguement here, people are designed to reproduce sexually, if we were designed to be homosexuals, we would all have some sort of hermaphedite system in us." - People are designed to reproduce heterosexually. If we were designed to reproduce homosexually, then there would exist a mechanism to reproduce from same sex interations (I proposed hermaphedite sex organs)

c) You're silly

d) All of the above.

You: "First of all errors in DNA replication are repairable" And you think I need to insult you?

Tell me how Genetic Modification works then please. Tell me how advances in treatment of autistic and down syndrome children have happened without genetic modification. Is the goal not to fix these broken genes? I'm sorry, I just don't understand how genetic modification works without modifying genes. Please explain this to me.

-5% the population isn't gay, it's closer to 1%. Toronto has the highest % of Gay individuals in orth America, and we're at 3%.
You claimed 5% the population is gay, not me. I'm just calling you out on what you claim.

-Random: The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." This concept of randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.

Thes mutations do not pick and choose which population is gay, they occur randomly in the population, affecting anyone under the correct circumstances.

You: But also following your logic, if reason behind being gay are those yours random mutations, than being gay would be inheritable.

I specifically explained how random mutations would not be inheritable. You even insulted me for it when I explained to you the difference between a random mutation and a heritable gene. There is no gay gene, and I never claimed their was. I always mentioned that homosexuality was due to a random mutation, either in DNA replication, during pregnancy, or during some other biological event.

However I'll explain it to you again. There is no gay gene, you cannot inherit homosexuality. However if a mutation occurs to the individual at some point during development then the homosexuality disorder may develop. Genes do not develop, you cannot alter your genes once they have been copied. Errors in DNA replication are not heritable. Do you understand logic?



You're fun

And since your are arguing that fitness is reduced, I'll only point out to numerous contraception methods that heterosexuals use as well. From simple pill to vasectomy. And on top of everything you assume that all gay people are out and proud, and have intercourse only with same gender. While the truth is not that fabulous.

Still, you were arguing with me that homosexuality does not reduce fitness. I never argued that to be a bad thing, but I did argue that if nature intended for humans to be homosexual, there should be an increase in fitness, yet we see the opposite.

And the biggest misception that you make is a claim that "from genetic point of view homosexuality is disfunctional". Why? Because you assume again that only reason to have sex is to reproduce. News flash... It's not, it's because it feels good. Humans have sex, because it feels good. It's that simple.

Humans have sex because it feels good, but humans also evolve because of sex. Sex with no outcome = no evolution.

Seriously? Please, make up your mind already... Is there or isn't there a "gay gene"?  You are now comparing autism and homosexuality? Let's do a little search...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=autism and then http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=homosexuality . Do you see the difference or I really have to spell it for you? Just to make it simple. If we do a search for "genes" related with autism we get 409 hits, if we conduct the same search for homosexuality we get zero hits (actually we get one hit which was withdrawn from database). So it's kinda obvious that you can "treat" autism with gene theraphy since you know what to target, while at same time no genes related with homsexuality are this far recorded or known.

I never claimed there was a gay gene, look at my posts and take a re-read.

Some statistical data even suggest that every 5th person is gay. The general concensus is between 5-8% if I'm not mistaken. It's hard to tell exact numbers because many people for one or another reason are in closet.

Nope, my dad's a doctor and I asked him. 3% is the highest rate in North America, and that's Toronto baby. Homosexuality rates are actually not that different from schizophrenic rates, about 1%.

The simple fact that high number of population is queer is proof enough that homosexuality is not as random as you think. The twins studies pretty heavily supported that statement as well. And the most recent epigenomic studies even heavily support that homosexuality can be inherited.

So schizophrenea, a random mutation leading to a chemical imbalance.....is not a random mutation? LOL

You haven't actually explained anything. You keep on going in ciricle while completly ignoring the things I'm trying to explain to you.

You ignore what I say.

And I never "claimed" that there is a gay gene. it's not me who's "chainging" genes with mutations, it's you. 

"Every variation in every organism is created by the development of a genetic mutation. If you're short, tall, dark-skinned, light-skinned, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, etc. it's because at some point in the history of your ancestral line, one of your ancestors developed a genetic mutation. Every gene in your body is technically a genetic mutation. So what's the difference between amutation and a defect?

A genetic defect is a disease or disorder that is inherited. The two most important parts of that definition (for our argument) are the terms disease and disorder. So what determines whether something is a disease or disorder or whether it's just a variation? I have blue eyes, caused by a genetic mutation. Most of my friends have brown eyes. Does this mean that I have a disease or disorder of the iris? Should I seek treatment to change my eye color, so I'll look more like my brown-eyed friends? No, because my blue eyes aren't a problem for me. They don't cause me harm, discomfort, or distress. I'm perfectly fine with having blue eyes. In fact, I like my blue-eyes mutation; it's one of my favorite genetic variations.

Let's say for the sake of our argument that homosexual behavior is caused by a genetic mutation. Does that mean that we should classify it as a genetic defect? If it doesn't cause homosexual individuals harm, discomfort, or distress, and it's not unwanted, then it's not a genetic defect, just a variation.

Natural selection dictates whether a mutation will continue in the species. A mutation that works against the survival of the species (such as an inability to breathe) eventually disappears because the last generation of animals with that mutation will die before they can reproduce. A mutation that helps the survival of the species (such as the ability to use tools) or makes no difference at all (such as my blue eyes) will probably continue because those with such beneficial or insignificant mutations will likely go on to have offspring who have the mutation as well. If homosexuality is a genetic variation, then it's up to natural selection to decide if it will continue or not."

So explain to me why schizophrenea, a disorder, believed to be genetic, is not heritable after only a single generation? (Grandchildren of schizophrenicas have basically the same chances of developing the disorder as the regular population.

Not all genetic mutations are errors in DNA replication. Different conditions during pregnancy can alter the steroid balance (estrogen and testosterone) in humans. Can it not alter some other chemical (even another steroid), to reassociate phermone release and whatever chamical is used to turnpeople on?

Anyway, even if you're looking strictly at genetic mutations causeing evolution, there are multiple different types of mutations, not all of them are heritable.

I beleive that homosexuality is a disorder that develops during pregnancy, but it could be due to various other factors such as the reaction between multiple different genes. Maybe 1 gene causes a chemical imbalance, another causes humans to become homosexual in the presence of this imbaloance, a third gene which normally corrects for errors in sexual arrousal could be ineffient, etc. I'm not a Biologist, I only took a couple credits in Bio, so I won't claim to know exactly how homosexuality works. No one does. However, even if you just look at wikipedia, the scientific community is leaning to biological factors over psychological.

Still, biological or psychological, homosexuality is still a disorder IMO. People don't just choose to be gay, if that were the case, homosexuals who want to be heterosexuals would just choose to be straight. Many people here believe it's just sexual preference, but if that were the case you should still find females attractive.

I don't think sexuality is a fluid medium, I don't think people are all bisexual, and most people just tend to be heterosexual. IMO, sexuality is black and white, most people are heterosexuals, and those who are not, are not heterosexuals are so because of some sort of defect/disorder/condition. I believe that disorder is biological in nature, similar to schizophrenea, while many believe it's psychological (you had bad experiences with people of opposite genders growing up). I'm not on the band wagon that think's it's nothing out of the ordinary. There is always a cause, it's just a matter of weather we classify that cause as normal, or is it predetermined at birth?

 

 

I was talking to a few people today, and I think in 20 years we will find out answer. You can do a genetic background test and get your genome mapped to determine what diseases/medical conditions your genes are more prone to get, and what diseases/medical conditions you are immune to. When these tests become cheaper and more accurate we will be able to compare people who admitted to being homosexual and seeing if their genetics are similar. If they are, and we can isolate genes exclusive to homosexuals, then we can finally have conclusive evidence for this matter.

Until then



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
Brutalyst on 21 January 2013

Well, firstly marriage is a comunion between two people, who take an oath before God, usually performed by a Priest/Pastor/Vicar or whatever. So how can you ask people to argue against gay marriage without mentioning religion? Now you could say it doesnt have to be performed as such, but if its not would the marriage be recognised as such?

 

I should point out, im not religious and know little about that subject (so maybe someone can clarify this next part for me) but doesnt it say in the bible marriage/love etc should be between a man and a woman? maybe even go as far to say between a man and man (or two women) is forbidden?

 

So there is the problem in itself, if a religous person believes the word of god/biblical writing etc, they have to believe that too.

 

Next I should point, though my comments so far might point to otherwise, I am not against marriage between two men or women. If a man loves a man and wants to show it with a commitment such as marriage, more power to them.

 

The problem lies in religion as if someone believes something such as God, the Bible etc, its there choice to do so, and someone else cant make those people do something, or perform an action that contradicts those belief's.

 

Finally, I believe marriage in itself to be a sham, though now its something people believe to be binding and an oath sworn under the eye or a witness of god/before god, thats not what it should be, and its not where its origin lies, and is something that became over time by the Romans I believe).

 

A marriage shouldnt be about religion or god, and just a commitment between two people. If two people want to make that commitment they should be able too without the need of a church or religion. But then as I said eariler who would recognise the marriage as such. Marriage to me has become intertwined with religion, and it shouldnt be. It should be nothing more than one person commiting themselves to another.

 



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

MrBubbles on 21 January 2013
Brutalyst said:

Well, firstly marriage is a comunion between two people, who take an oath before God, usually performed by a Priest/Pastor/Vicar or whatever. So how can you ask people to argue against gay marriage without mentioning religion? Now you could say it doesnt have to be performed as such, but if its not would the marriage be recognised as such?

 

 


just because some people do that, doesnt mean thats what marriage is.   if i take your hat and feed it to a goat and then say hats are goat food why would anyone want to wear them on their head... does that really make it goat food?



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Brutalyst on 21 January 2013
MrBubbles said:
Brutalyst said:

Well, firstly marriage is a comunion between two people, who take an oath before God, usually performed by a Priest/Pastor/Vicar or whatever. So how can you ask people to argue against gay marriage without mentioning religion? Now you could say it doesnt have to be performed as such, but if its not would the marriage be recognised as such?

 

 


just because some people do that, doesnt mean thats what marriage is.   if i take your hat and feed it to a goat and then say hats are goat food why would anyone want to wear them on their head... does that really make it goat food?

You got half my point.

 

Your goat analogy doesnt work, as most wouldnt recognise it as 'Goat food' which is my point. Marriage shouldnt be about two people pledging an oath before god and signing a bit of paper at the end of it. But people wouldnt recognise it as marriage by law if thats not how it was done.



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

MrBubbles on 21 January 2013
Brutalyst said:
MrBubbles said:
Brutalyst said:

Well, firstly marriage is a comunion between two people, who take an oath before God, usually performed by a Priest/Pastor/Vicar or whatever. So how can you ask people to argue against gay marriage without mentioning religion? Now you could say it doesnt have to be performed as such, but if its not would the marriage be recognised as such?

 

 


just because some people do that, doesnt mean thats what marriage is.   if i take your hat and feed it to a goat and then say hats are goat food why would anyone want to wear them on their head... does that really make it goat food?

You got half my point.

 

Your goat analogy doesnt work, as most wouldnt recognise it as 'Goat food' which is my point. Marriage shouldnt be about two people pledging an oath before god and signing a bit of paper at the end of it. But people wouldnt recognise it as marriage by law if thats not how it was done.


except you seem to recognize if as something which it isnt (regardless of whether you feel it should or shouldnt be)  just because some people have done it that way.   essentially you are recognizing the hat as solely goat food saying that you think people should be able to wear hats on their head. 



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
timmah on 21 January 2013
fordy said:
timmah said:
fordy said:
timmah said:

1. The definition of the word Bigot still does not apply to simply teaching my children right from wrong. I can teach my Children not to do something, while at the same time, teach them the all important values of not judging others, not looking down on others, and treating everyone with love and respect regardless of the other person's background, sexual orientation, skin color, etc. As I see it, the most important point made by Jesus in his life and words was to love others as yourself, never Judge anyone, and treat everyone with dignity because we're all created equal, and we're all viewed equally by God no matter what our faults. In other words, the values I teach my children on how to view and treat others are the exact opposite of teaching them bigotry. Also, if I teach my children that it would be wrong for them to do some action, but they make the choice to go against what I taught them when they are of age to make such choices, I will still love them, accept them and will treat them no differently. This is also the oppsoite of Bigotry, which is at it's core "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. "

2. Your comparison of my morals, first to those of Hitler, then to somebody who wanted to kill people who he hated are insulting, untrue, and way over the line. I'm not even going to waste my energy on that utter nonsense.

3. As I explained in point 1, I'm not talking about, nor have I ever been talking about teaching or exercising intolerance through my parental authority, I teach the exact opposite to my children, as do most Christians I know. I have advocated for equal legal rights for homosexual couples through Civil Unions (as I believe they are entitled to that since they are no different than you and me), as well as, on multiple occasions expressed my tolerance and acceptance of people with differing views than mine (including you), you are technically the only person in this specific discussion that has actually shown actions that meet the definition of Bigotry as defined in point 1. I'm not going to call you a bigot, because I would hope these actions are more due to an excess of passion and emotion rather than a deeply held bigoted worldview. I would prefer to assume the best about you as a person, I had hoped you would show that you could behave in a reasonable manner in a debate.

4. Your patronizing tone is very detrimental to your arguments. Of course I know what the term lemming refers to, it insinuates foolishness and stupidity to the point of following another off a proverbial cliff, so you are blatently called me a 'stupid fool' by the definition of the term. That's why I took offense to it. Also, I use the term 'opinion' to express humility in this case, suggesting that, though I may have arrived at a conclusion using logic, the conclusion is still my opinion (regardless of how many logical arguments I can make for it). This is because I know there is still room for me to grow and learn on every subject. I also use the word 'opinion' in a debate to show that, though I may believe something, I'm not going to hold it in such high regard as to say your opinions are wothless or not worth debating, as this would quickly destroy any chance for a good, reasonable debate. I still maintain that the majority of your attacks were both over the line and took a very derogatory tone towards those you disagree with. I also still maintain that you quickly use the term Bigot in an overly broad way, extending "stubborn and complete intolerance" to somehow mean "any form of disagreement or opposing belief".

EDIT: You also (incorrectly) state I didn't use any logic, though I did. I'll state my argument again. Teaching a child to not do a specific action does not automatically make them bigoted towards those who do that action, nor does it mean I will be bigoted towards them if they do that action, ESPECIALLY if that child is taught to respect others regardless of any other factors (as you don't have the whole picture on the entire parenting methods an indivudual will use, you do not have enough evidence to drop the word Bigot). Teaching a child "You shouldn't do action X for Y reason" while also teaching "You are no better than anybody, you should treat everybody with equal love and respect in the same manner you would want to be treated" is not the same as saying "You shouldn't do action X and people who do action X are bad, beneath us, we're better than them, etc." You are using a slippery slope argument to say that, if I teach my child not to do action X, I must therefore be intolerant of them if they in the end choose action X, and must also be teaching them to hate or be intolerant of those who do action X. The last two parts of that slippery slope argument were added in your mind and never stated by me or any of the other people you attacked, they are also untrue in my case.

Also, I notice that you have called me both a Lemming and Lazy. A lemming (mindless, stupid follower of others) for reading and copying a previously stated argument, Lazy for not reading the previously posted argument so as to know I shouldn't re-use it. So which is it... Lemming (requires that I read the previous argument) or Lazy (requires that I not have read the previous argument). I guess, since your logic is clearly the absolute truth, I won't suggest that in spite of the fact that I had read earlier posts, I used an argument I already had in my own mind before this discussion (which would be neither lemming or lazy), but that would require that your logical process have even the remote possibility of having any flaw, so I will not suggest that. :/

To respond directly to one of your points, when you said: "if you come on here saying, "I guarantee my kids wont be having sex outside of marriage", then yes, that is bigotry too, because it displays a degree of intolerance in your position of authority."

The above does not directly show bigotry, as it depends on the intentions of the parent and what the parent would do if they were proven wrong in their statement. If I were to say the statement above, it would more likely be over confidence that my parenting skills and a fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of a children as they grow into adulthood more than anything else. Someone who makes a statement like that is more than likely naive on the subject and overly confident, but that statement is not bigotry in and of itself because there are too many unknowns. The person who made the similar statment to the above also said he treats everyone with respect and dignity, so it is logical to assume he would also treat his children with respect and dignity and teach them to do the same. This is why I found that particular statement to be naive, but not enough to automatically jump to calling him a Bigot. To put it in different terms, if the statement has other explainations or reasons outside of bigotry (over confidence, naivete, etc.), you cannot with certainty say it is bigotry or that the individual is a bigot since you do not know enough about the indivudual to know his motives.


So where did you get that definition from? Anywhere official? My definition was from Merriam-Webster. Please cite your source of the definition of bigotry that you have stated. Once again, this is an argument about the definition of the word, so I'm hoping you didn't just make up your own definition on the spot, which is likely to have been created as a result of perceived use of the word, and not the actual definition in itself. 

So you're going to tech them tha tbeing gay is wrong, while at the same time teaching to treat everyone equal? That generally makes for quite a few confused children, so my question is, why even bother with the first one, ESPECIALLY since you've said that if they decide to do it anyway, you'll accept it. All you'd be doing is giving your children a sense of superiority over others they deem as "wrongdoers", and if you think that they'd choose being equal over having an upper hand over someone, then you obviously don't know children too well. Keeep in mind that a lot of Christian rich people didn't get to their position by doing the RIGHT thing. Teaching to be selfless while at the same time giving ammunition to use in acts of bigotry is a contradiction in itself. Bigotry only breeds bigotry. Any determination to teach their kid that a group of people are wrong or sinners is bigotry. It's doesn't have to be determination in upholding it as it does in determination to TEACH it.

Did I make ANY direct comparison to Hitler? My point was that EVERYONE has morals and beliefs, but that doesn't automatically make them right. You might THINK you're going the right way about teaching children that homosexuality is wrong, when in essence all you're doing is pushing him into a future of bigotry and intolerance. Why would you wish that kind of future on your kids? 

I suggest that you don't so searching too hard for insults that aren't there. Besides, you're assuming logic. For instance, to say that being a Lemming because you read the post implies that Lemmings have intricate knowledge of what the leader is doing. This is false. You can look up that many animals can die as a result of a stampede towards a cliff. It's not knowledge of WHY they're running or the intentions of the initial cause, it's individual instinct to run given the environment (in that case, many others running around them). Therefore, to say that being a Lemming and lazy can not happen is false. In fact, being Lazy and not reading previous posts that have been answered CAN result in Lemming attitudes. There is no indirect implication here.

Once again, you're using your OWN built definition of bigotry. Please cite a reputable source of where you got this definition from. I'm going to bring up another example of this: interracal marriage. Would you teach your kids that this is wrong? Why/Why not? Would you believe that it would cause any kinds of conflict elsewhere as a direct result of such teachings?

I chose that definition because it sums up both the term bigotry and bigot better than Mirriam-Webster.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

1.

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
 
 

Mirriam-webster defines it as follows, which requires we look into the definition of a Bigot.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry
Bigotry:
1: the state of mind of a bigot
2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
 
From the definition above, we now have to find out what a bigot is...
 
Bigot:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
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
 
There are important qualifying words in the definition that should not be overlooked. Note that it clearly does not define a bigot as somebody who simply has opinions opposed to an action, lifestyle, or another person's opinions, but who is devoted to those opinions in such a strong way as to be obstinant or intolerant, it also clearly references treatment of a group as part of the definition. Unless you can prove actual intolerance (which you cannot), or show poor treatment of a group or 'looking down on', judging a group, etc. your use of the words Bigot and Bigotry are overly broad.
 
To me it's no different than political views or any other set of views, I can disagree with somebody's opinions and/or choices but still respect them and treat them as I would want to be treated. Case in point would be my brother in law, he's agnostic, has very left leaning political views, and we disagree on many, many things, but he's a great friend and we have a great time when he's in town. We even have good, stimulating debates on all types of issues without resorting to insults or assuming the other is some sort of moron.
 
I would submit to you that, though I live my life by a certain standard I believe to be the best way for me and my family to live a fulfilled, purposeful life, I can very easily avoid judging others and looking down on others who don't live by my exact set of morals because I believe God values all people equally, regardless of their actions. I also believe that the greatest sin I can commit against God is to treat people around me in the way you assume I would, to look down on, judge, shun, all the things you falsely think I would do or promote. I believe treating anybody or any group in a bad way or looking down on them, even somebody who is looked down on by society,  is a direct insult to God. My children will learn the same core values of respect, love, humility, and tolerance that I aspire to. The bigotry you so quickly accuse me and others of is the exact opposite of everything I believe Jesus taught and lived, and what I attempt to live as well.
 
Edit: on the Lemming vs Lazy thing, I think you missed my point, which was that you both accused me of reading something and copying it (called me a lemming for that), as well as not reading it so therefore not knowing it had already been stated (you called me lazy for that). I could not have read it and not read it at the same time.

 

That definition that you supplied still fits my argument, as you will see. Nearly all definitions of bigotry contain the word "intolerance", which I have already shown exists in such a case, due to the nature of parental authority in the situation. Unless I can prove actual intolerance? I already have! It's you who's choosing to spin this situation into something that is perfectly acceptable and NOT bigotry. 'Looking down' on a group? Well perhaps teaching their kids that being gay is wrong is a start. It establishes a level of superiority over said group to begin with. You think that hatred and intolerance comes naturally?

You need to understand that there are many different ways to debate, and just because you're debating against a type that doesn't quite make you feel humble, that doesn't mean their points are wrong. If you're going to argue that way, I don't care, but if you start bringing useless points to the table, then you SHOULD expect people to be ticked off for you wasting their time.

I'm going to ask you once again, if you TRULY believe that God values all people, and you'd love all people, regardless of their actions, then WHY teach kids that one group in particular needs to be singled out and told that what they're doing is wrong? That's a complete contradiction in itself. Oh, and take a look back. You'll see that I've only accused ONE person directly of being a bigot, and that was because of his COMPLETE INTOLERANCE as you so defined (by means of a guarantee). If you go by the same means of persistently guaranteeing that your kids will not be gay, then you'd be branded the same thing.

And on the Lemming thing, you missed MY point (which was mine to begin with, considering that *I* made the accusation to begin with), so I suggest that you try not to find insults where they are not intended to be.

No it doesn't, not even in the least. By your obsurd, incredibly broad application of the word, I could not teach my children ANYTHING at ALL without you calling me a bigot without any basis or proof. Are you simply are choosing to not even take into account the entirity of what I'm saying? You ignore 90% of what I say and hone in on one thing, then broaden my statements and put words in my mouth to match your argument. There's no other option here as I've clearly proven that I'm not talking about any type of intolerance at all, I TEACH MY KIDS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF INTOLERANCE & BIGOTRY, PERIOD. Everyone I know at my church does the same.

For the sake of argument, what if this specific guarantee was more in arrogance or naivete than bigotry? What if just thinks he's going to have easy to teach kids that will listen to him, or that his parenting and reasoning skills are so awesome that there's no way his children will disregard his advice? There are multiple possibilities, so while it is possible that there was bigotry, it is highly unlikely since he already said he doesn't look down on other groups or act intolerantly towards them, so I would assume that in reality, he would most likely continue that. I assume the best about people until I see differently in their actions towards others. It's not a complete certainty either way, which is why it is over the line to call somebody that name out of your assumption of their motives. The only way your accusation works is if you actually know his intentions and motivations, which you do not. Could you at least consider that maybe you don't know somebody else's inner motivations?

Where in the world did you get that I would teach my kids to single out a group or tell other people what to do? Where? I can't even begin to know where you got the idea I would teach my kids to tell another group what to do.(?) I'm completely aghast at the stuff you come up with, the thoughts and beliefs that you ascribe to me are completely foreign to me and seem to come from some straw man you want me and others to be. Where could you possibly get the idea that I think a group needs to be 'told' what they're doing is wrong? You're telling me I believe things that I do not and never have believed, you continually presume to know what is in my mind in spite of everything I tell you. You either didn't read what I said or chose to ignore it, that's the only way you could possibly think this. I'll say it again... I teach my kids what they should do in their own life, how THEY should live, while teaching them never to look down on others or other groups, ever. In addition, I will love and accept them no matter what. It's not our (my family's/Christians in general) job to tell other people or groups what to do , it is our job to live an exemplary life of kindness, period. If you follow the example of Jesus, he lived a perfect life, while making friends with, loving and reaching out to people who were considered 'sinners' and 'outcasts' by society and the religious folks of the time (who ended up killing him). He went against societal norms by not looking down on anybody, ever, and by treating everyone as equals. If I teach my children to follow His example to the best of their ability while looking to follow this example myself there's absolutely no way they or I can be bigots. This goes for all Christians who truly understand the example set by Jesus. I am sorry that vocal and judgmental individuals have destroyed your opinion of Christians as a whole, the fact is that most of us are not like that.

Also, calling someone a lemming is clearly an insult any way you slice it. Are you calling me intelligent for 'not having any thoughts or opinions of my own and blindly following somone else off a proverbial cliff', that's what the term means. You're calling me the exact opposite of intelligent, that looks like a pretty clear insult to me, not really sure how you could say otherwise.



Player1x3 on 21 January 2013
fordy said:
Player1x3 said:
fordy said:
Player1x3 said:
timmah said:
I don't understand why some people automatically assume that if you disagree with somebody's actions or lifestyle, you're automatically a bigot, this makes no sense. I personally think it's wrong to sleep around, but I have close friends who do and I'm not bigoted towards them, it's their choice and not my place to judge them. If they came to me asking for advice, I'd give it to them straight, but that doesn't mean I hate them, judge them, dislike them, am bigoted towards them, or anything else like that. It's very possible to disagree with somebody's personal choices without being a 'bigot', and unfortunately that term gets thrown around way too often to degrade other people's opinions. I even worked with (and was good friends with) an openly gay man for a few years. I never saw it as my duty to judge him or tell him my opinion about his actions, because they are HIS actions and aren't hurting anybody else, so why should I care what he does at home? We even had a couple good discussions about gay marriage and he agreed with me about civil unions.

That's why, while a don't personally believe that homosexual acts are 'ok', the same way I don't think sleeping around is 'ok', or that watching porn is 'ok' (which DOES NOT make me bigoted against people who do those things), I don't think it's right to deny people rights based on that, which is why I believe we should have civil unions with same or similar legal benefits to marriage. Also, if a same-sex couple wants a ceremony, there are plenty of ministers out there who will do that.


You have just earned a shit ton of respect from me :D If only bigots like fordy could have a perspective on society and people like you do :)


Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "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"

Show me where I have highlighted a particular group in this discussion, letalone regard them, unless of course you're accusing me of being prejudiced towards gays by being too sympathetic towards them...

 

It's a pretty simple concept called logic. You should try it, sometime...

You are a bigot to everyone that has a different opinion than you, which is the worst kind of bigot IMO. You constantly kept attacking and provoking killerxz and call him names because you disagree with him. Its pretty obvious that you're insanely intolerant towards most people who have a different view on the world than you. You're really not so much different than the christians and other groups you constantly like to flame and attack here, despite how extremly high you think of yourself. 

It's a pretty simple concept called self awarness. You should try it, sometime...

That's interesting. By that definition, that makes YOU a bigot as well, cosnidering you have a different opinion to me. So everyone who has a different opinion to everyone else is a bigot...

Once again, highlight where I have been attacking a GROUP in this thread, and NOT an individual's opinions. If you're just going to be throwing up random blabber, at least make it something with logical reasoning behind it.

It's a pretty simple analogy called "foot in your mouth", I'd suggest you try it, but it appears you already have.


Wow, you're pretty desperate. The difference between you and me is that i didn't attack, flame, provoke or name call you or anyone for having a different opinion than me whereas you constantly flamed killerzx and timmah for disagreeing with you. Are you able to comprehend this difference?

And bigotry isn't necessarily tied to a group of people. You can just as easily be a bigot towards an individual. Although if you're interested in groups, i'd say it's pretty obvious that you seem to be a bigot towards a group of people who have different opinion than you on the subject..



fordy on 21 January 2013
timmah said:

No it doesn't, not even in the least. By your obsurd, incredibly broad application of the word, I could not teach my children ANYTHING at ALL without you calling me a bigot without any basis or proof. Are you simply are choosing to not even take into account the entirity of what I'm saying? You ignore 90% of what I say and hone in on one thing, then broaden my statements and put words in my mouth to match your argument. There's no other option here as I've clearly proven that I'm not talking about any type of intolerance at all, I TEACH MY KIDS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF INTOLERANCE & BIGOTRY, PERIOD. Everyone I know at my church does the same.

For the sake of argument, what if this specific guarantee was more in arrogance or naivete than bigotry? What if just thinks he's going to have easy to teach kids that will listen to him, or that his parenting and reasoning skills are so awesome that there's no way his children will disregard his advice? There are multiple possibilities, so while it is possible that there was bigotry, it is highly unlikely since he already said he doesn't look down on other groups or act intolerantly towards them, so I would assume that in reality, he would most likely continue that. I assume the best about people until I see differently in their actions towards others. It's not a complete certainty either way, which is why it is over the line to call somebody that name out of your assumption of their motives. The only way your accusation works is if you actually know his intentions and motivations, which you do not. Could you at least consider that maybe you don't know somebody else's inner motivations?

Where in the world did you get that I would teach my kids to single out a group or tell other people what to do? Where? I can't even begin to know where you got the idea I would teach my kids to tell another group what to do.(?) I'm completely aghast at the stuff you come up with, the thoughts and beliefs that you ascribe to me are completely foreign to me and seem to come from some straw man you want me and others to be. Where could you possibly get the idea that I think a group needs to be 'told' what they're doing is wrong? You're telling me I believe things that I do not and never have believed, you continually presume to know what is in my mind in spite of everything I tell you. You either didn't read what I said or chose to ignore it, that's the only way you could possibly think this. I'll say it again... I teach my kids what they should do in their own life, how THEY should live, while teaching them never to look down on others or other groups, ever. In addition, I will love and accept them no matter what. It's not our (my family's/Christians in general) job to tell other people or groups what to do , it is our job to live an exemplary life of kindness, period. If you follow the example of Jesus, he lived a perfect life, while making friends with, loving and reaching out to people who were considered 'sinners' and 'outcasts' by society and the religious folks of the time (who ended up killing him). He went against societal norms by not looking down on anybody, ever, and by treating everyone as equals. If I teach my children to follow His example to the best of their ability while looking to follow this example myself there's absolutely no way they or I can be bigots. This goes for all Christians who truly understand the example set by Jesus. I am sorry that vocal and judgmental individuals have destroyed your opinion of Christians as a whole, the fact is that most of us are not like that.

Also, calling someone a lemming is clearly an insult any way you slice it. Are you calling me intelligent for 'not having any thoughts or opinions of my own and blindly following somone else off a proverbial cliff', that's what the term means. You're calling me the exact opposite of intelligent, that looks like a pretty clear insult to me, not really sure how you could say otherwise.


And here we go again, not realising that teaching your kids to love everyone, yet homosexuality is a sin is blatant hypocrisy. It's the exact OPPOSITE of toleration, if you're teching your kids to be just as intolerant towards a group, and stop bringing up this "they wont use it for bad because I'll teach my kids the exact opposite" bullshit when you're still as comitted to teaching them that homosexuality is evil. When people are given the choice between loving someone and hating them by their authoritative figure, that just gives them excuses to hate on people and saying that they "do it because they love them", and that's exactly the same message that you're bringing to this argument at this very moment. Plans of acts of bigotry hidden under "I can teach my kids to hate anyone and disguise it as love".

What if it was arrogence or naietivity? What if people who planned murders never planned on executing them, but were arrested for planning to murder a civilian anyway? Either way, he said a stupid thing and has to deal with said consequences. If someone says, seriously, to you, that they were planning to murder somebody, would you treat it like they were planning to do it? And before you start the crap about saying that this has nothing on the degree of murder, then think about this. This can be considered manipulating a child's life, making them think that what they are is wrong, because of his beliefs. Ever wonder why LBGT people have a MUCH higher rate of suicide? Cmon, take a guess....

Are you or are you not going to teach your kids that being gay is a sin? If so, you're delusional if you don't think that they're going to look at the gay community and NOT think of them as a bunch of evil people doing sinful things. You can live in your la-la land where you think that anything you do has absolutely no effect on others. You're planting the seeds of prejudice into young kids' minds. I'm going to repeat this once again: if you think that kids brought up this way are NOT going to use this at any time as a means to prove that they're somehow more rightfully just than somebody else who happens to be homosexual REGARDLESS if you teach them that it's for them and not for others, then you're just outright delusional with your predictions. Not only that, but you'd be teaching a child that what they are is wrong (if they happen to be gay and you teach them that it's a sin). What's your plan there? Hope that they don't kill themselves before they become old enough to question it?

So you mentioned they follow in the path of Jesus....And how are you going to teach said kids to 'reach out' to gay people (said sinners)? They get the idea then that 'reaching out' means to start informing them that what they're doing is wrong, in an attempt to 'save them'. Your entire plan is riddled with things that haven't been taken into account, and hypocrisies EVERYWHERE.

Despite your assumptions, I'm not against Christians at all; I'm just against the ones who push hateful agendas onto others, or their kids. You might argue that it's not a hateful agenda to say that things a group of people are doing is wrong; and in that case, I urge you to keep reading the above few paragraphs until you FULLY understand it.



fordy on 21 January 2013
Player1x3 said:


Wow, you're pretty desperate. The difference between you and me is that i didn't attack, flame, provoke or name call you or anyone for having a different opinion than me whereas you constantly flamed killerzx and timmah for disagreeing with you. Are you able to comprehend this difference?

And bigotry isn't necessarily tied to a group of people. You can just as easily be a bigot towards an individual. Although if you're interested in groups, i'd say it's pretty obvious that you seem to be a bigot towards a group of people who have different opinion than you on the subject..

If you don't like my method of arguingm, then don't step in. However, it's a pretty long shot to be calling argumentative methods as bigotry. Even peaceful means of intolerance are still classed as bigotry. As you'll see in the definition, it defines that bigotry must have a level of intolerance. YOUR intolerance came by initially posting such a flame with such idiocy as not to provide any kind of justification behind it.

So in other words, you're saying I'm bigoted towards a group of people I disagree with? Once again, that would make EVERYONE a bigot (including you. Surprise surprise). Whether it comes out as agressive or as annoying as your illogical posts are, it's still bigotry by your definition. What you fail to see is that I'm arguing with one on a completely different matter to the other poster. Besides, are you implying that these guys are in some kind of anti-gay group? Also, the thought of arguing that someone is intolerable for not standing the views of an "anti" group (ie. one that displays the INITIAL intolerance to said group), is outright ironic and laughable. Are you seriously going to try to argue your way down this dead end? 



timmah on 21 January 2013
fordy said:
timmah said:

No it doesn't, not even in the least. By your obsurd, incredibly broad application of the word, I could not teach my children ANYTHING at ALL without you calling me a bigot without any basis or proof. Are you simply are choosing to not even take into account the entirity of what I'm saying? You ignore 90% of what I say and hone in on one thing, then broaden my statements and put words in my mouth to match your argument. There's no other option here as I've clearly proven that I'm not talking about any type of intolerance at all, I TEACH MY KIDS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF INTOLERANCE & BIGOTRY, PERIOD. Everyone I know at my church does the same.

For the sake of argument, what if this specific guarantee was more in arrogance or naivete than bigotry? What if just thinks he's going to have easy to teach kids that will listen to him, or that his parenting and reasoning skills are so awesome that there's no way his children will disregard his advice? There are multiple possibilities, so while it is possible that there was bigotry, it is highly unlikely since he already said he doesn't look down on other groups or act intolerantly towards them, so I would assume that in reality, he would most likely continue that. I assume the best about people until I see differently in their actions towards others. It's not a complete certainty either way, which is why it is over the line to call somebody that name out of your assumption of their motives. The only way your accusation works is if you actually know his intentions and motivations, which you do not. Could you at least consider that maybe you don't know somebody else's inner motivations?

Where in the world did you get that I would teach my kids to single out a group or tell other people what to do? Where? I can't even begin to know where you got the idea I would teach my kids to tell another group what to do.(?) I'm completely aghast at the stuff you come up with, the thoughts and beliefs that you ascribe to me are completely foreign to me and seem to come from some straw man you want me and others to be. Where could you possibly get the idea that I think a group needs to be 'told' what they're doing is wrong? You're telling me I believe things that I do not and never have believed, you continually presume to know what is in my mind in spite of everything I tell you. You either didn't read what I said or chose to ignore it, that's the only way you could possibly think this. I'll say it again... I teach my kids what they should do in their own life, how THEY should live, while teaching them never to look down on others or other groups, ever. In addition, I will love and accept them no matter what. It's not our (my family's/Christians in general) job to tell other people or groups what to do , it is our job to live an exemplary life of kindness, period. If you follow the example of Jesus, he lived a perfect life, while making friends with, loving and reaching out to people who were considered 'sinners' and 'outcasts' by society and the religious folks of the time (who ended up killing him). He went against societal norms by not looking down on anybody, ever, and by treating everyone as equals. If I teach my children to follow His example to the best of their ability while looking to follow this example myself there's absolutely no way they or I can be bigots. This goes for all Christians who truly understand the example set by Jesus. I am sorry that vocal and judgmental individuals have destroyed your opinion of Christians as a whole, the fact is that most of us are not like that.

Also, calling someone a lemming is clearly an insult any way you slice it. Are you calling me intelligent for 'not having any thoughts or opinions of my own and blindly following somone else off a proverbial cliff', that's what the term means. You're calling me the exact opposite of intelligent, that looks like a pretty clear insult to me, not really sure how you could say otherwise.


And here we go again, not realising that teaching your kids to love everyone, yet homosexuality is a sin is blatant hypocrisy. It's the exact OPPOSITE of toleration, if you're teching your kids to be just as intolerant towards a group, and stop bringing up this "they wont use it for bad because I'll teach my kids the exact opposite" bullshit when you're still as comitted to teaching them that homosexuality is evil. When people are given the choice between loving someone and hating them by their authoritative figure, that just gives them excuses to hate on people and saying that they "do it because they love them", and that's exactly the same message that you're bringing to this argument at this very moment. Plans of acts of bigotry hidden under "I can teach my kids to hate anyone and disguise it as love".

What if it was arrogence or naietivity? What if people who planned murders never planned on executing them, but were arrested for planning to murder a civilian anyway? Either way, he said a stupid thing and has to deal with said consequences. If someone says, seriously, to you, that they were planning to murder somebody, would you treat it like they were planning to do it? And before you start the crap about saying that this has nothing on the degree of murder, then think about this. This can be considered manipulating a child's life, making them think that what they are is wrong, because of his beliefs. Ever wonder why LBGT people have a MUCH higher rate of suicide? Cmon, take a guess....

Are you or are you not going to teach your kids that being gay is a sin? If so, you're delusional if you don't think that they're going to look at the gay community and NOT think of them as a bunch of evil people doing sinful things. You can live in your la-la land where you think that anything you do has absolutely no effect on others. You're planting the seeds of prejudice into young kids' minds. I'm going to repeat this once again: if you think that kids brought up this way are NOT going to use this at any time as a means to prove that they're somehow more rightfully just than somebody else who happens to be homosexual REGARDLESS if you teach them that it's for them and not for others, then you're just outright delusional with your predictions. Not only that, but you'd be teaching a child that what they are is wrong (if they happen to be gay and you teach them that it's a sin). What's your plan there? Hope that they don't kill themselves before they become old enough to question it?

And how are you going to teach said kids to 'reach out' to gay people (said sinners)? They get the idea then that 'reaching out' means to start informing them that what they're doing is wrong, in an attempt to 'save them'. Your entire plan is riddled with things that haven't been taken into account, and hypocrisies EVERYWHERE.

Despite your assumptions, I'm not against Christians at all; I'm just against the ones who push hateful agendas onto others, or their kids. You might argue that it's not a hateful agenda to say that things a group of people are doing is wrong; and in that case, I urge you to keep reading the above few paragraphs until you FULLY understand it.

I'm not commited to teaching my kids that homosexuality is evil. I never said that and you continue to put words in my mouth since my words and actions don't fit your biased worldview. You also again jumped to hyperbole (using murder in an argument the same way you used Hitler and a racist who intended to commit murder).

The key concept you don't understand is that as a Christian, I fully realize that I am a sinner, I do things that are 'sinful' pretty much every day. I act like a jerk to my wife at times, get angry at other drivers on the road, fail to be patient with my kids, and slip up in many, many ways. Just because I know something is a 'sin' doesn't mean I look down on anybody for it, because I'm in the same boat as everybody else. How can I look down on somebody for being a 'sinner' when I myself am also a 'sinner'? The point really is that God forgave us, so we in turn would be slapping Him in the face if we looked down on or 'judged' any other person. Your fundamental lack of understanding regarding that key point is why you mis-judge literally everything else. I don't believe I'm more righteous than anybody else, whether somebody else is gay, alcoholic, whatever, I'm just as much a sinner as they are... I'm no more righteous than anybody based on my actions, I am only made right with God through Grace and Forgiveness. That being the case, I have no right to view myself as better than anybody else, to look down on anybody else, or to call anybody else a 'sinner'.

And 'reaching out' means purposefully befriending somebody who is an outcast in order to show them love and acceptance they are missing. That's all. If you have a problem with that, I don't know what to say.