Badlittlepup Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 You assertion is that Nick Clegg is a bigot for describing people who are against gay marriage as bigots. You are wrong. Whilst they are entitled to an opinion (and I accept that it is their opinion), holding that opinion makes them bigots. Identifying them as such does not make anyone else a bigot. Being intolerant of an intolerant opinion does not make one a bigot, that definition is circular and nonsensical. It doesn't necessarily make them bigots. There may be many reasons why they are opposed to gay marriage, it's not necessarily as simple as 'I don't like gays and I just don't think they should be allowed to get married'. There are quite complex theological reasoning behind this for many christians who have thought long and hard about it, so to simply label anybody who disagrees as a 'bigot' is in itself bigoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 There are quite complex theological reasoning behind this for many christians who have thought long and hard about it Such as? There are deep theological arguments about the sacredness of sperm, but we don't ban condoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 You assertion is that Nick Clegg is a bigot for describing people who are against gay marriage as bigots. You are wrong. Whilst they are entitled to an opinion (and I accept that it is their opinion), holding that opinion makes them bigots. Identifying them as such does not make anyone else a bigot. Being intolerant of an intolerant opinion does not make one a bigot, that definition is circular and nonsensical. So if Cleggy is not a bigot for calling people bigots who are not in fact bigots, I suppose it just makes him an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 No it isn't. Marriages existed long before Christ. Theology being the study of something that can't be studied. Indeed. Bigotry. A formalised union of two people existed, it wasn't marriage in the Christian sense. Theology - that is simply your opinion. And anyway - none of that answers the main point I made. Those who are guiltiest of bigotry in today's society are the left wing politically correct lobby who hold an orthodox set of views and attack anybody who disagrees with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 So if Cleggy is not a bigot for calling people bigots who are not in fact bigots, I suppose it just makes him an idiot. Read the extract which mentions bigot, which I have posted twice now, and tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that Nick Clegg called people who are not bigots "bigots". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Read the extract which mentions bigot, which I have posted twice now, and tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that Nick Clegg called people who are not bigots "bigots". So he didn't call anybody bigots? I thought that was the basis of the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 A formalised union of two people existed, it wasn't marriage in the Christian sense. A nice tautology. A Christian marriage wouldn't exist without Christ - no. It did however exist in cultures before him, and after him, and it doesn't need his teachings to be a marriage. Theology - that is simply your opinion. No. The Study of God is not a subject that can be studied. Fact. The study of religious texts is barely a subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Yes you are, you accused him of bigotry, which was the very thing he did which caused you to accuse him... If he is intolerant of the opinion of religious people then he is by definition a bigot. I'm not intolerant of his opinion or the opinion of the church therefore I am not a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 It doesn't necessarily make them bigots. There may be many reasons why they are opposed to gay marriage, it's not necessarily as simple as 'I don't like gays and I just don't think they should be allowed to get married'. There are quite complex theological reasoning behind this for many christians who have thought long and hard about it, so to simply label anybody who disagrees as a 'bigot' is in itself bigoted. It might be misguided or incorrect, but to label people as bigoted who appear to be espousing bigotry no matter what sophistry they use to justify it is not bigoted. Complex theological reasoning doesn't stop the opinion being "Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance." No matter how you try to justify intolerance, it's still intolerance and you're still a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 If he is intolerant of the opinion of religious people then he is by definition a bigot. If you are intolerant of his opinion (which you define as using 'bigot' to describe someone who holds such an opinion) then by definition you are also a bigot. But as I already explained, this is circular and so nonsensical. I'm not intolerant of his opinion or the opinion of the church therefore I am not a bigot. a) You are calling him a bigot. b) You are saying that he is a bigot because he called someone else a bigot. I refer you to point a) and then again to point b), but now applied you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.