Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,919 Year: 4,176/9,624 Month: 1,047/974 Week: 6/368 Day: 6/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 7 of 175 (698054)
05-02-2013 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rahvin
05-02-2013 1:44 PM


When I change the word "gays" to "interracial couples," that statement becomes very obviously racist.
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.
The question is really about whether or not it is right to discriminate against homosexuals. Discrimination in and of itself is not wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 1:44 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 6:41 PM Taq has replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2013 1:14 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 10 of 175 (698058)
05-02-2013 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rahvin
05-02-2013 6:41 PM


I'm fairly certain that we are talking exclusively about relationships between consenting adults. At least, I am.
All I am saying is that we need to be careful not to conflate one idea with another.
I thing it makes a much stronger argument to do what you just did which is to focus on the right of adults to consent. Using an argument where you replace A with B, and then show how the argument fails with B, is not always a valid way to make an argument, IMHO.
You;re right that discrimination is not wrong - but discrimination without an actual basis beyond "sexual orientation" or "skin color" and so on is.
Right, so we need to ask why some people think it is ok to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not ok to discriminate on the basis of race.
Don;t fall for the bigots' arguments.
Don't commit logical fallacies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 6:41 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 7:17 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 30 of 175 (698129)
05-03-2013 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rahvin
05-02-2013 7:17 PM


It's perfectly valid when A and B are actually interchangeable.
That is what you need to show (and I do agree that they are interchangeable).
I do try not to. If you believe I've committed one, it would be helpful if you would name it and point out where.
The fallacy is equivocation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 7:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 32 of 175 (698131)
05-03-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
05-03-2013 10:43 AM


Gee, when I started this post I thought I might have something meaningful to contribute, now I'm not so sure.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The intersection of morality, law, and government has been a contentious topic since . . . well, forever.
Ultimately, if someone wants to affect or withhold certain rights they need to justify those actions. What we see right now is that the justification for withholding marriage protections to same sex couples just isn't that compelling. If we allow gay couples to marry there really isn't any harm being done to anyone. In this case, it really is about personal freedoms and the infamous "pursuit of happiness".
But what about murder? That is a different story. There is obvious harm being done to someone else. It isn't about making personal choices for yourself. You have purposely ended the life of another person which is the ultimate harm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 05-03-2013 10:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 33 of 175 (698132)
05-03-2013 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2013 10:47 AM


Re: What and Whom Does The Bible Support?
What are these eunuchs that He's talking about? They don't have to be castrated men, as men are not born that way. I think the term includes homosexuals and Jesus was cool with them, but... He does seem to think that they shouldn't be marrying.
I read "live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" as those who live a chaste life thinking that it will increase their connection with God. A modern parallel may very well be gay catholic men who enter the priesthood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2013 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2013 11:09 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 37 of 175 (698140)
05-03-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by dronestar
05-03-2013 10:54 AM


Re: What and Whom Does The Bible Support?
I don't think I ever met a christian who wasn't a flaming hypocrite.
The greatest irony is christians with tattoos telling people that homosexuality is an abomination:
"Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the LORD."--Leviticus 19:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by dronestar, posted 05-03-2013 10:54 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by dronestar, posted 05-03-2013 11:17 AM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024