You are allowed that belief as an American. However, as an American, you have to accept that they have the same rights as you do. Christians do have the right to consider whomever they wish "sinners," but they don't have the right to use the government to take away the right of Non-Christians to live according to their own conscience. Likewise, Non-Christians have the right to consider Christians who attack their beliefs and lifestyles to be bigots, they don't have the right to take away the right to practice Christianity.
But I specified that just disagreeing with homosexuality or, rather, in recent situations, homosexual marriage, will get one labeled a bigot - I'm speaking of just disagreement without without further action on the part of the Christian (no attack included).
As far as the government goes, if people are allowed to vote for something and vote a particular way, it shouldn't be considered an attack on beliefs and lifestyles. What's the point in being allowed to vote if whatever loses is going to react that way? I know Atheists and people of other religions who don't agree with homosexual marriage either and have voted against it; does it make them bigots to utilize their ability to vote in a way that aligns with their beliefs? And if Non-Christians are allowed to consider Christians who attack their beliefs and lifestyles bigots, do you feel that Christians are allowed to consider Non-Christians who do the same to them, bigots as well?
Much of this ridicule comes from the fact that Christian parents want Abstinence ONLY sex education in schools which had been proven to be ineffective at reducing pregnancy and STD transmissions among teens. Abstinence is admirable, but it's not realistic. Teens are going to be teens, so you might as well educate them.
Duly noted, but I'm not speaking on that scale. Just on the scale of those teaching their own children abstinence. This is especially true in school where, as a child/teen, being a virgin is something people do get picked on for.
Telling people who disagree with you that they are sinful and are going to burn in Hell doesn't result in hostility, it is hostile.
So... calling someone a bigot is justified and not considered hostile but the above is? Even though the majority don't actually even believe in hell or sin but
do believe there's a negative connotation attached to the label of "bigot"?
(Note: regardless of whether or not one believes Christianity is the largest religion in the world, if looking at the specifics of the sects claiming adherence to Christianity, you'll find that a good many, at least, have an internal doctrine that doesn't align with a Biblical hell).
On the other hand, it's not about whether or not a person disagrees with the Christian. You are aware that the Bible says everyone's deserving of Hell (Christian included) right?
reply
share
lupinemadness
10 years ago
But I specified that just disagreeing with homosexuality or, rather, in recent situations, homosexual marriage, will get one labeled a bigot - I'm speaking of just disagreement without without further action on the part of the Christian (no attack included).
Duly noted, but I'm not speaking on that scale. Just on the scale of those teaching their own children abstinence.
So... calling someone a bigot is justified and not considered hostile but the above is? Even though the majority don't actually even believe in hell or sin but do believe there's a negative connotation attached to the label of "bigot"?
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Christians have a right to their opinions about everyone else, but everyone else
also has a right to
their opinions about Christians. That is how America works.
I can't speak for each and every individual instance that a Christian or anyone else has been referred to as a bigot because I wasn't there and can't attest to the specific conversational context in which the word was used. Sometimes are people are too quick to use the term and use it to shut down an argument. Often enough, though, a bigot is a bigot. For instance, whenever you hear someone say "I'm not a racist or anything, but..." you know you're going to hear something racist. People too often think that prefacing their negative statements about others with "No offense, but..." gives them a free pass from criticism. It is your right to say those things, but other people have the right to oppose and criticize what you said.
As far as the government goes, if people are allowed to vote for something and vote a particular way, it shouldn't be considered an attack on beliefs and lifestyles. What's the point in being allowed to vote if whatever loses is going to react that way? I know Atheists and people of other religions who don't agree with homosexual marriage either and have voted against it; does it make them bigots to utilize their ability to vote in a way that aligns with their beliefs? And if Non-Christians are allowed to consider Christians who attack their beliefs and lifestyles bigots, do you feel that Christians are allowed to consider Non-Christians who do the same to them, bigots as well?
We need to talk about this. What we strive for in this country is a notion of Equal Rights. An individual's rights end where yours begin, and yours end where the next person's begin. You can "disagree" with homosexual marriage all you like, but homosexuals have just as much of a right marry a consenting adult that makes them happy as you do. There was a time when people "disagreed" with interracial marriage. I disagree with Christianity, with Islam and with all religion in general. However, I disagree even more with a system that would take away your right to believe and practice any of those things.
What does God need with a starship?
reply
share
Tamith
10 years ago
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Christians have a right to their opinions about everyone else, but everyone else also has a right to their opinions about Christians. That is how America works.
Your original comment was that "Christians aren't berated for upholding biblical standards, only when they demand that everyone else does" so that's what I was addressing, since although you say Christians have the right to their opinions, people often react otherwise to the point of even physical hostility. What you're describing isn't touching on what I was touching on when answering the original question of the thread.
I can't speak for each and every individual instance that a Christian or anyone else has been referred to as a bigot because I wasn't there and can't attest to the specific conversational context in which the word was used. Sometimes are people are too quick to use the term and use it to shut down an argument. Often enough, though, a bigot is a bigot. For instance, whenever you hear someone say "I'm not a racist or anything, but..." you know you're going to hear something racist. People too often think that prefacing their negative statements about others with "No offense, but..." gives them a free pass from criticism. It is your right to say those things, but other people have the right to oppose and criticize what you said.
Agreed.
We need to talk about this. What we strive for in this country is a notion of Equal Rights. An individual's rights end where yours begin, and yours end where the next person's begin. You can "disagree" with homosexual marriage all you like, but homosexuals have just as much of a right marry a consenting adult that makes them happy as you do. There was a time when people "disagreed" with interracial marriage. I disagree with Christianity, with Islam and with all religion in general. However, I disagree even more with a system that would take away your right to believe and practice any of those things.
But the concept seems to be different, as people disagreed legally with interracial marriage as well as interracial unions all together. Those I spoke of, at least, think a union is fine (even to the point of it being a legal union) but just don't want the term marriage used, making, I suppose, the issue more about semantics than what one person should be physically allowed to do with another.
I understand, however, that for those on the outside looking in at what I consider differences may not see a difference between the two (that is, the disagreement between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage), and that's fine.
reply
share