Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?

quote:

---

(I maintain that my argument is not bigoted and is sound and would appreciate discussing this topic further in this new thread.)

---

Do you actually intend to PRODUCE your argument ? Your refusal to do so is one of the reasons that I consider you to be a bigot.

quote:

---

Patel was correct, for that was the essence of the rants directed against me as the argument picked up steam. The basic rant was not that I supported the right of gays to marry...it was the sheer audacity of my even questioning another persons choice of morality.

---

I think you mean that instead of falling into your rhetorical trap, your opponents made points that you couldn't answer. Especially as you were unwilling to actually state what your argument actually was.

quote:

---

Thus, my beliefs are by definition my opinions and prejudices and involve hatred and intolerance. But does intolerance in and of itself qualify as bigoted? If so, I receive it back.

---

And this is a typical response of bigots to being called on their bigotry. If your only response to my point is an empty tu quoque can I not reasonably conclude that I am correct ?

quote:

---

At the time i read the article, I laughed at the supposed absurdity of a guy marrying his dog or his car.

---

And you should have realised that the claim was a strawman. In lieu of an actual argument Patel attempts to link gay marriage with the idea of marrying a car.If someone genuinely had a good argument against gay marriage they wouldn't stop to such tactics. It is exactly this common pattern that leads me to conclude that the real opposition to gay marriage is founded on bigotry.

quote:

---

Getting back to Patels question as to "who says" what is socially acceptable, I challenge anyone to tell me that everyone should butt out of any and all human desires and let humans do whatever they want. My argument is that it is my churches responsibility to speak out not against everyone as if we are the morality police but as concerned neighbors who want to encourage dialogue in this area.

---

Well, if you're supporting Patel you think that the churches should engage in slimy and dishonest tactics to manipulate the law-making process. I really don't think that that's a Christian attitude - or anything that anyone SHOULD engage in.

quote:

---

We need to be careful using that argument. When we change the word "gay" to "pedophilia" it doesn't become bigoted. We strongly discriminate against pedophiles and that is not a bigoted view, at least in most eyes.

---

I don't think that we do. Remember that Phat is ALREADY making similar insinuations. Simply making a better comparison - and more honestly - seems a decent response.The onus should not be on us to justify NOT discriminating. NOT discriminating should be the default. The onus should be on those who would discriminate to justify their discrimination, always.And THAT is one reason why Phat should openly state his argument. The fact that he doesn't is rather telling.

I think that I can make out a couple of points about what the Bible says.First, the Bible doesn't single out homosexual behaviour out as a particularly terrible sin. Jesus isn't even quoted as having anything special to say about it. If your paying special attention to homosexuality then you ought to ask yourself why you're doing it.Second, shouldn't you be more focussed on your own behaviour (which has hardly been good in this thread or the preceding one) ? Shouldn't you get your own house in order first ?

quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that God may have created some of us with attraction for our own gender not to encourage procreation, nor sexual pleasure but, rather, for some deeper emotional bonding? In other words, ask yourself what the possible purposes of attraction really are.

---

Well I'd think that if there's a purpose to same-sex sexual attraction then it probably involves same-sex sexual activity - either as a part of the purpose or as a part of working out that purpose. It would be a little odd to intentionally motivate someone to engage in any activity without the intent that they should engage in that activity.And indeed that would fit with your idea of emotional bonding. Or is it that you see sex as only for reproduction or pleasure ? For you, there's no intimacy, no closeness in it at all ?

quote:

---

Which "rock" do you suggest we build our support upon?

​

PleaseConvinceMe Blog

---

Sophistry is a very poor foundation for anything.But when do you intend to START supporting your beliefs (whatever they are). The pattern of refusing to make clear arguments continues. Quite frankly it seems clear to me that you don't believe that your position - whatever it is - can be defended.Edited by PaulK, : fix tagEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

1) In regards to the term Christian who gets to categorize them? Can non Christians categorize Christians? Can only one club out of the many denominations categorize other clubs? In short, what is the standard that can or should be used from which to properly categorize another group unlike ones own?

---

Unless you are proposing an official body to make such determinations doesn't it come down to individual judgement anyway ? What alternative could you offer ?

quote:

---

My argument is that the Word of God is the standard by which to compare. Others would argue that logic, reason, and human wisdom and/or consensus should be the standard.

---

Then your position is hopelessly confused, failing to realise that logic reason, and what you call human wisdom must be used to apply any standard you propose, but cannot in themselves define a standard without some basis for doing so.Anyway, what standard do you propose ?

quote:

---

Critics will again say that I pick and choose which scriptures to use to support my argument. in regards to your accusation as to untruth and "miscategorization", I ask you again...according to whose standard?

---

The implication here is that you intend to be dishonest. And that you intend to "justify" that dishonesty" by trying to imply that YOUR opinions on the matter have a more-than-human source as you do so often.When I went to church I was taught that people should look at Christians and wish that they could be that good. I look at what some of the "Christians' here do and I'm glad that I could never be that bad.

quote:

---

Quite simply, Jesus Christ. Humans have no capability to judge each others behaviors apart from Christ. even our vaunted logic, reason, and reality is meaningless without Christ.( I doubt you could prove me wrong, but I'm open to the idea of your trying.

---

Then, since Jesus isn't around to provide such judgements your position must be that we should stop using the term altogether. I don't think that that is a very sensible position. The term's there, let's use it.

quote:

---

Belief in Jesus Christ. Only through Gods redemption and redemptive power does global society have any sort of hope to make it. You wont need to prove me wrong on this one, for you will see the ever increasing evidence that I am right.

---

Then I guess we ought to include the Mormons, and maybe even the Unification Church (Moonies) as Christians. That's pushing it, in my view, possibly too far.But the question raised here is are you referring to "Christian" as a general term or the idea of "True Christians" ? It seems that here you are referring to the general term while earlier you were referring to something far more specific.

quote:

---

I am being as honest as I can. I have no need to try and win arguments simply to validate my ego.

---

Then I guess you need to ask why you have problems being open and honest. Can't you just openly state your position and your arguments for it ? Why not ? It would be the best defence against accusations of bigotry - if those accusations were false.And I don't think that we need to hear your preaching. Surely you should establish yourself as someone worth listening to first? If you want to turn people away form your views you're doing a fine job of it, but I don't think that is your intent.

I think that dictionary.com is closer to my intent: And I think that your error was in referring to the article at all.

And now we get the egotistic boasting. But let's face it Phat, you're not even brave enough to openly state the opinions you're meant to be defending. You're not doing anything for Jesus, it's all for you.The Gospel message is not about fantasising about your own greatness or the rewards that await you for happening to believe the "right" doctrines.