(July 20, 2018 at 1:06 pm)robvalue Wrote: Trying to oppose changes to the law which allow people equal rights is intolerant. Throwing people out of your family/church is intolerant. Harassing people on the street is intolerant. Calling someone a bigot on an interent forum, when they say bigoted things, is not intolerant. No one is trying to silence anyone, hassle them, remove their rights or change the law so that they can't hold or display those views anymore. It's simple pushback of opinion against an opinion.

This x 1000.  I have every right to push back when someone else wants to restrict my rights, but not the rights of some "approved" group.  Defending oneself against egregiously unfair treatment is not bigotry.

(July 20, 2018 at 3:07 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(July 20, 2018 at 1:06 pm)robvalue Wrote: Trying to oppose changes to the law which allow people equal rights is intolerant. Throwing people out of your family/church is intolerant. Harassing people on the street is intolerant. Calling someone a bigot on an interent forum, when they say bigoted things, is not intolerant. No one is trying to silence anyone, hassle them, remove their rights or change the law so that they can't hold or display those views anymore. It's simple pushback of opinion against an opinion.

This x 1000.  I have every right to push back when someone else wants to restrict my rights, but not the rights of some "approved" group.  Defending oneself against egregiously unfair treatment is not bigotry.

I agree.... you have every right to voice what you think is wrong. The same as others do. We may disagree, but I can understand where you are coming from. Again, I don’t think that intolerance is just simple disagreement. To,stance would imply that there is disagreement. Do you think that when someone won’t even listen, and has to make up “what you really mean” that, that is a sign of bigotry? How about when you cannot even discuss without name calling and personal attacks? This is what I would call intolerance and bigotry.

(July 20, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(July 20, 2018 at 1:51 pm)robvalue Wrote:

Lol funny vid 

Thanks Been to long since I did one. Inspiration comes from the funniest places.

But guys we have to treat Roadkills position as a "difference in a opinion " otherwise were the bigots 

---

(July 20, 2018 at 5:26 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(July 20, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Lol funny vid 

Thanks Been to long since I did one. Inspiration comes from the funniest places.

Indeed 

I don't know what he expects, honestly. This is a discussion forum, not a "safe space" where you can say whatever you want and it's free from any criticism.

I guess he spends his life surrounded by many people who feel much the same as him, and bigotry on this subject feels like the norm. I can understand that, our values are very much influenced by society. That's why I personally always try and evaluate my ethics objectively rather than accepting any sort of status quo.

---

PS: my brain is a bit slow. I just realized, wanting laws to be informed by religion is desiring a theocracy. This comes back to my comment in my video how secular law protects everyone. Such a person could eventually find themselves on the wrong end of a theocracy, with laws being decided by someone else's religion. I guess Christianity has had a stranglehold for so long that the idea of other religions having influence feels absurd, and any removal of their unearned privilege is seen as persecution.

(July 21, 2018 at 3:38 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't know what he expects, honestly. This is a discussion forum, not a "safe space" where you can say whatever you want and it's free from any criticism.

I guess he spends his life surrounded by many people who feel much the same as him, and bigotry on this subject feels like the norm. I can understand that, our values are very much influenced by society. That's why I personally always try and evaluate my ethics objectively rather than accepting any sort of status quo.

---

PS: my brain is a bit slow. I just realized, wanting laws to be informed by religion is desiring a theocracy. This comes back to my comment in my video how secular law protects everyone. Such a person could eventually find themselves on the wrong end of a theocracy, with laws being decided by someone else's religion. I guess Christianity has had a stranglehold for so long that the idea of other religions having influence feels absurd, and any removal of their unearned privilege is seen as persecution.

Using the same logic, he's being intolerant of us, by complaining about us calling people bigots. See how stupid things get when you distort the meanings of words to try to make points that don't work. I'm not entirely sure these guys know what bigot means. It's a perfectly factual comment when someone writes something which discriminates against a group of people solely because they are in that group.

There is nothing wrong with criticism, and I never said otherwise. This is about being able to have an honest and civil discussion. I’m not going to keep fighting against what is only in your imagination, and whatever polemic you ty an twist to gain rhetorical advantage.

(July 13, 2018 at 11:17 am)SteveII Wrote: There should at least be an attempt to correctly characterize the other side's position in a civil discussion.

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.

Cut the crap, Steve, and admit you're a bigot

(July 21, 2018 at 9:45 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is nothing wrong with criticism, and I never said otherwise.  This is about being able to have an honest and civil discussion.  I’m not going to keep fighting against what is only in your imagination, and whatever polemic you ty an twist to gain rhetorical advantage.

Let me put it this way.

Suppose someone claimed that inter-racial marriage isn't a real marriage and that real marriage is limited to those of the same race. Suppose that they point to the historical separation of the races as justified both societally and by religion.

Would you not say this person is a bigot?

The situation with gay marriage is *exactly* the same.