Cyclone Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Clegg is that convinced of the superiority or correctness of his own opinion that he is willing to call someone a bigot for having a different opinion, which also makes him a bigot. It wouldn’t make me a bigot because I’m not intolerant of anything, I think everyone has a right to their own opinion. You're so convinced of the correctness of your argument that you call Nick Clegg a bigot. Which would seem to qualify you, under your own definition, as being a bigot. Your definition makes no sense though, as a few people already pointed out, being intolerant of intolerance is not bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 And Clegg must be intolerant or he would resort to calling people bigots, just has Brown was intolerant of the old lady he called a bigot. So you're claiming that to identify a bigot as a bigot is actually intolerant and therefore bigotry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 He may have withdrawn the remark but was it a wrong choice of word, if he actually believes people are bigots because they have a different opinion then imo he is wrong Did he think they were bigots because they had a different opinion? Or because they're advocating intolerance at a state level against gay marriage? If it's the latter, then bigot was the correct word to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Clearly a religious person has a valid argument if they have a belief that God says being gay is a sin and that marriage is defined has the union of one man and one women, we may not agree with it but it is just has valid has our argument that gay marriage should be allowed. I'm not convinced that it's a valid argument at all... The bible says that adulterous women should be stoned to death, should someone who believes that be allowed to go ahead and do it? 'Religious' is not a magic word that means attitudes cannot be questioned or described as intolerant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Clearly a religious person has a valid argument if they have a belief that God says being gay is a sin and that marriage is defined has the union of one man and one women, we may not agree with it but it is just has valid has our argument that gay marriage should be allowed. It's seems even more clear that a religious person who believes "that God says being gay is a sin and that marriage is defined has the union of one man and one women", and also happens to be gay, should be allowed the choice of not marrying. Nobody is forcing anybody to get married in a manner that conflicts with their religious beliefs, but some bigots are attempting to restrict other people's ability to get married. Everybody is entitled to think that gay marriage is wrong, divorce is wrong, sex outside marriage is wrong or whatever, but nobody has a valid argument to restrict these things for other people if they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Clearly a religious person has a valid argument if they have a belief that God says being gay is a sin and that marriage is defined has the union of one man and one women, we may not agree with it but it is just has valid has our argument that gay marriage should be allowed. Religious people who make such arguments should try reading their Bible properly. If God's pronouncements on homosexuality are so important, what about all his other thoughts? God also says that unmarried girls who are raped should be sold to their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), girls who are not virgins when they marry should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:19-21) that disobedient children should be killed and that slavery is acceptable (Exodus 21). Exodus 22:29-31 features God commanding Jews to sacrifice their firstborn son, a legacy from earlier forms of the religion. The parable of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22) only really makes sense as part of the process of reforming early Judaism; it explains that child sacrifice is no longer 'kosher'. The common response to this is that god changed his mind and offered a 'new covenant' with the resurrection of Jesus. Just for the sake of argument; let's say I accept that this god exists and that the Bible is true, and the new covenant wipes out all the rules from the Old Testament/Torah. Should we just forget that for so many thousands of years god did impose such immoral rules on his people? At the risk of Godwinning myself; if Hitler had survived Berlin and decided that he'd been wrong all along, become a meek and mild philanthropist - perhaps even converted to Judaism - would we just have forgotten about the millions of dead and injured? Are anti-human crimes of such magnitude simpy irrelevant if the guilty party has a change of heart? As for biblical marriage; this table summarises the various options quite nicely. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however stupid. Disagreeing with that opinion does not mean you are a bigot. Actively discriminating against people who are different does mean you are a bigot. Interestingly, Clegg didn't say that opponents of same sex marriage are bigots - that's the bit he crossed out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Hardly. Anything built on a premise of 'God says x' is invalid by default. In your opinion but not theirs, this is where bigotry comes in when you are intolerant of their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Does that make you a bigot because you think he's a bigot? That's what you seem to be suggesting. No because I'm not demonstrating any intolerance to his opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 You're so convinced of the correctness of your argument that you call Nick Clegg a bigot. Which would seem to qualify you, under your own definition, as being a bigot. Your definition makes no sense though, as a few people already pointed out, being intolerant of intolerance is not bigotry. bigotry intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself: No being intolerant of their opinion makes you a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Did he think they were bigots because they had a different opinion? Or because they're advocating intolerance at a state level against gay marriage? If it's the latter, then bigot was the correct word to use. It would appear from some of the posts that he didn't think anything because he didn't say it or write it. And I haven't said that bigot was the wrong word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.