What are your thoughts on Islam, Judaism, Hinduism -- do they promote things that Jesus finds unacceptable? Do you want these religions not to be taught to children?

I don't accept that being a Christian means you have to want everyone to do all things Christianity approves of and nothing else, and any deviation is worse for society.

I never laid claim to any of these arguments. But if you did read the whole post, you would have found all of the points above already responded to.



I don't think the writer is trying to make a slippery slope argument. He is showing the inconsistency in the position he is criticizing.

Cry me a river.

If you want to really know what growing up like a second class citizen feels like, you should have grown up in my stepfather's house.

But I'm sure the writer would respond with: oh those poor second-class cousins.


It's in there too, in the first link.

I appreciate your objective look at this, that's gracious of you, although I'd like to know what you think would make me consistent. That I should both, hold beliefs, and try to impress them on people?

I don't think that Christianity means "wanting everyone to do all things Christianity approves of", that doesn't represent my view, at least it depends on how you define "wanting". Christianity by definition is one who believes in Christ, what we were arguing is what constitutes moral or immoral behaviours. Of course I would like people to be Christian because I believe Christ is the way of salvation, but I don't feel the need to impose anything on anyone. If someone wants to hear about my beliefs, I will share them, aside from that I'm just a regular joe.

With regards to other religions, since I believe in Christ, naturally I do not believe in Allah or Vishnu or that Jesus was not the Christ. I wouldn't send my kids to a Muslim school, but I'm not about to rally against Muslims, if they believe in Allah so be it, I simply disagree, but I can still be friends with them, be pleasant with them, and live side-by-side with them. Same goes for gay people, or common-law people, or whatever-people. I'm friends with a wide variety of characters, including staunch atheists who do what they want, I don't have to impose my will on them to be a Christian. In fact I was just at a friends house watching the game, had a beer with him, had some conversations with him, and he does not believe in God and knows I'm a Christian. I don't see any problem.

The paranoia about atheist commies runs deep...


The other fun thing is this is only true when the numbers arent needed. The non Christian Christians will somehow become Christians again and used for arguments when their numbers are needed.

Basically the same question as gastman.

Can we replace pot and same sex marriage with Islam or atheism or other non Christan beliefs in this? They are wrong in your eyes and they encourage this wrong behavior and acceptance.

Seems like you shouldn't want them to be legal either if we are just going on wrong and encouraging the behavior.

In essence, yes, any ungodliness that is encouraged will produce more ungodliness. Things do have different levels of consequences though, not everything is equal. For instance people accept that murder is wrong and lying is wrong, but obviously the two carry different weight and are not comparable. As to what is worse or better, I don't know, I don't think I am able to tell you if one has any more consequences than another, at least with certainty, and it would just be an opinion.

Id guess Islam and the growing atheist population will have more impact then same sex marriage would. Just a guess.

And as far as the acceptance of homosexuality as a norm and not wrong. Same sex marriage isnt doing that. It would be more the decriminalization of gay sex and ending of sodomy laws that is doing that (although id just like to think people are just getting better and more moral so the laws change, zing). Same sex marriage is just a natural result of those changes.

So if you want to stop its encouragement you should really want the reversal of those laws and norms. Not one of the offshoots of those changes. I would think.

I would think that anything that directly denies the existence of God is worse, I just don't want to start categorizing what is better or worse, it seems futile.

Homosexuality in itself is not the main concern, there have likely been gay people for as long as there have been people. The bigger issue is the wide acceptance of it, and the sexualization of society in general.

It's not really my job to stop people from doing things I don't approve of. Just because I believe something to not be beneficial doesn't give me the freedom to take away people's rights. If I had a vote, I would vote against gay marriage, or abortion, or against legalizing weed, or to keep prayers in school, the list goes on and on. At a certain point though, one needs to realize that simply forcing someone to not sin does not make them righteous, and just because I believe some things are not beneficial doesn't mean I'm going to use force. If the government presents me with the option to give my opinion, I will, but that's as far as I go.

I don't recall Christ forcing anyone to do anything with the exception of the temple-sellers, he just speaks to people and tells them to "sin no more", or rebukes them by telling them they are dong wrong. I don't see this as any different. If you ask me, I tell you I don't think some things are right, and it's not God's way.

lol Aaron

I'm not going point to point with you on this because it's relatively simple and uninteresting. However I will state it clearly for you once.

If we start with the definition from wiki

Your opposition to this is that opposition to equality legislation may not be motivated by fear distrust or hatred. I do not consider that list exhaustive nor do I consider myself qualified as to comment on peoples mental states not being a psychologist. So instead I am happy to take this definition and refine it so that it reads someone who as a result of their prejudices would discriminate based on ethnicity, evaluative orientation etc.

You then consider these equivalent

Which is nonsense.

I don't appreciate it being suggested my presentation is dishonest especially when that claim is merely intended to obfuscate your own.

The rest is rubbish, I never claimed you called me a bigot I said there's a clear inference from your own vague definition of bigotry that could apply to me. However I wouldn't expect you to claim it directly because that would require you to defend it.

I'm not defensive I'm exasperated with you taking what I've said relatively clearly and then suggest suggesting I'm saying completely different. So prejudice and discrimination equalling bigotry is by your standard completely arbitrary despite it being easy to understand.

I'm not imputing a secret hatred, I ceded that the list of operatives is not exhaustive because I'm not qualified to comment on peoples mental states.

I asked you this question,

This is an awful response is indicative of your own lack of honesty and makes it exceedingly difficult to have a productive conversation with you so I'll stop trying.

Its not futile if you are for one thing being allowed and one not. Its key. Why one but not the other?


And i think the ending of the crime of homosexuality and sodomy laws has more to do with that acceptance then gay marriage. Ones a root the other is an offshoot.


This is a contradiction. If you vote on these things or would you are making it your job and stopping them. Voting is what is sopping homosexual marriage.

Thats force to me.
Well id disagree. But if you would or have vetoed for someone who tries to stop gay marriage you are forcing those laws on people.

I mean I don't want to start comparing which sin is better or worse. Or what I believe to be sin.

Maybe you're right, if that is force. Although the government does not give me that option, it's more force by omission, since I vote for the conservative or christian groups, if available, and if I vote.

I think there is a difference here, although I'm not confident enough to declare there is a difference. Force to me implies more of an effort to rally against gay marriage in some way, not voicing an opinion when the option is presented.

This post kind of blows my mind. What you're essentially saying is, "I don't believe in forcing my views on people, but I DO vote for people that will force my views on others for me, and I DO support laws that force my views on others."

How can you not see the massive contradiction there?

So someone puts you in a room and says, "press this button and gay marriage is legal, press that button and it isn't." So, you press the button that makes it illegal, and don't see that as forcing your views on other people?

Spoiler: The above is a metaphor for voting.

There is nowhere where I can vote to stop gay marriage, like I said to batair, it's more a vote of omission by voting for conservative parties.

I don't think making it illegal would change anything to be honest, it has already become mainstream as an ideology. If you are asking me if I think it is right, I don't think it is. If you are asking me personally if I could make it illegal, would I? I had this conversation with some people yesterday, and I couldn't answer definitively. Making things I believe to be wrong illegal seems like a theocracy.

And im asking why do you not want a law which allows homosexual marriage but not laws when it comes to the others. So far im lost as to your answer.

It cant be impact or acceptance since i think ive shown others would or have had a greater impact and influence on acceptance.

Id say its force. I want to force homosexual marriage on society. I do that by voting.

You are not just expressing an opinion if you are voting. You are an active participant in creating or dismantling laws.

I don't make the laws, and I'm kind of glad I don't. I don't think a theocracy is the best way. Do I think some things should be illegal? I don't think that solves anything necessarily, as long as things are regulated. For example, I don't think gambling is especially beneficial, but it's regulated enough to where you can grow up without it being introduced to you repeatedly throughout your day. If the entire world was like the Las Vegas strip, then I would probably say we need a change.

I have never voted against gay marriage, I don't even think it's possible to do that, I'm not sure how things work in the US, is that an option I'm not aware of? If someone came to my door and asked my opinion, I would not lie, I would say I don't think it's a good idea. If that's force, then I guess I use force.

I mean, what you believe on a personal level doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter to me if you think gays are going to hell, or blacks should drink from separate water fountains, or the Jews orchestrated the JFK assassination.

But as soon as you start voting for people that want to put that stuff into law, then it matters.

You seem to be against theocracy, but you vote to put people in power that would like nothing more than to institute one (in everything but name).

Didn't realize you weren't from the US. In the USA there have been times when people could (and did) directly vote against gay marriage (research the whole "proposition 8" fiasco in California for one such example), and you can also vote for politicians who will fervently seek to enact anti-gay legislation, which while it may not be voting against gay marriage directly, is a bit like saying, "I don't believe in killing Jews, but I did vote for Hitler." (Godwin's law fail I know, but it's late and I couldn't think of any other blatant examples.)

Idk... i think i showed a few contradictions but if you dont see em you dont see em. Its all good.

Okay, fair enough, but do you think that I should have to vote for the liberal party?

The only point I specifically want to challenge you is on this one and legitimately hope for a response for is this one:

At no point did I imply you were bigoted.

Right. So you're extending the definition of bigotry. You want to call it "refining" when the fact is you "redefining" it. No longer does bigotry have to do with fear, distrust, or hatred. You conclude people are "bigoted" because of a policy position.

That's what happens when you redefine words. You are the one who desires to create a more inclusive definition of bigotry. And the consequence of holding that more inclusive definition is that it allows you to call people bigots. That's all you're doing.

Let me be clear, though I think I've been very clear on what my point is: I think your definition of bigotry is flawed. It's also problematic in terms of your ability to have a meaningful conversation.

I never defined bigotry. I would have taken the wikipedia definition AS STATED as the definition of bigotry. Bigotry (in my mind) includes an element of hatred, where hatred is the emotionally-laden term that it is.

What would you like me to defend about it?

Again, bigotry in its generally understood form contains an element that is lacking in your characterization of it. Prejudice and discrimination are prejudice and discrimination. They do not add to bigotry because prejudice does not require that emotional element, nor does discrimination. Bigotry is a stronger characterization than either of the other two.

Edit: To be clear, prejudice is dispositional and discrimination is an action. Bigotry is an action based on a particular emotional disposition -- taking the wikipedia definition you chose -- specifically fear, distrust, and hatred. Emotional disposition is a subset of dispositions, so that there exist discrimination based on prejudice that's not bigotry.

Take a good, long look at this. "Because I'm not qualified to determine whether someone is acting out of hatred, I'm going to redefine a word that includes that hatred element so that the hatred element is removed, and then use that word to characterize people." Do you not see how this is problematic?

What do you want me to say? Hatred manifests itself in all sorts of ways. But it's about hatred. It's not necessarily about policies, which can have any of a large number of motivations behind it.

To pick a word that (in its proper sense) narrows that broad range of motivations to a single one (or a small collection of motivations) and use it for something that can have one of a very large number of motivations is problematic.

Edit: Why are you so intent on wanting to call people bigots? Why do you want that ability?

I see what you're saying, I don't have it all worked out to be honest. I'm not big on making people do things, but if something is already one way, like pot is already illegal, me saying I agree seems different than say, making a new law to enforce something, like if I say that adultery should be illegal and enforced.

I do think both are wrong, but I don't think me trying to get adultery banned is the best way. It doesn't mean I support adultery and don't frown on it.

That doesn't really help, but ok.