CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does voicing disaproval of gays/lesbians make you a bigot?
Some people think so. I say that THEY are worse than bigots, because they are basically saying that one cannot have an opinion on the subject. At least not one contrary to theirs. This is my main gripe about militant homosexuals. They DEMAND that we accept their lifestyle, and even condone it. Some of them actually want legislation passed that would make it a hate crime, simply for voicing disagreement with their lifestyle. What happened to freedom of speech? They want people to be tolerant towards them, while displaying no tolerance for people of faith. They call them bigots and homophobes. I could care less if someone is gay. Just keep it to yourself, and leave the rest of us alone.
Vocal disapproval of homosexuality is an expression of intolerance directed at a group of people and compelled by irrational and unfounded prejudice. Fits the definition to the letter.
Notably, observing that the verbalized opinions of a person qualify them as a bigot does not at all mean that they cannot hold or express their views. It just means that doing so marks them as a bigot, by definition.
By choosing to be gay, which shouldn't be a problem for those who assert that it is a choice. My whole point is to illustrate that it is not, in fact, a choice.
It's not meaningless at all. It is asserted by many that it is not a choice, and that is frankly untrue. Even if you don't hold the urges to be sinful, this is directed at those who do.
That said, I'll address the interesting point you raised:
It's also untrue that sin always involves a choice- urges alone are sinful, according to Matthew 5:28. Looking at a woman and experiencing lust is evidently the same thing as committing adultery. One simply cannot, at all times, anticipate the presence of an attractive woman in ones field of view- nor can one prevent oneself from feelings of lust when viewing an attractive individual.
If looking at a woman and feeling lust is the same thing as committing adultery with her, then looking at a man and feeling lust for him is the same thing as engaging in homosexual sex with him.
Ergo, sin does not always involve a choice, and whether or not it is a choice does matter. This should be obvious considering that we are born into sin before we are actually capable of making any choices whatsoever.
You are so wrong. You are misreading it. There is nothing wrong with appreciating a beautiful woman. Sin doesn't enter the equation unless the guy starts fantasizing about her. He may imagine what it would be like to sleep with her. He might even go so far as to try to lure her away from her husband. SO. Noting, briefly, that a chick is a total babe then moving on, is not a sin. The sin occurs when one takes it a step further. And THAT involves a choice.
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
It specifically says looking at a woman lustfully- this is the New International Version.
The misreading, in this case, is yours- getting 'fantasizing' from that is a large interpretive stretch. To be fair, this is one of the many cases where different translations of the Bible carry a significantly different connotation- but none of the translations specifically say fantasizing, and the classical greek translates roughly to 'look on with desire.'
I can't really blame you for twisting the wording of your own Bible to fit your agen- Oh, wait, yes I can. This wouldn't be the first time you've twisted the words of the bible and selectively ignored what is inconvenient to your cause. Shame on you, you hypocritical bigot.
I'll see their 'most minsterpreted' and raise it back in their direction, to the way it is used so widely by the church to justify oppression of gays. As if being gay was the sin to end all sins or something.
Christians do not oppress gays. I'll admit that people who CLAIM to be Christians do that. Ever hear of something called a false Christian. There are many of them out there. Lumping all Christians together is like what they claim we do with gays, or any other group. And it's not the fact that gays are sinning that make Christians opposed to them. Their decision is a rejection of God. Everyone sins. The difference is that Christians admit their sin to God and ask forgiveness. PRACTICING gays do not.
Ever hear of something called the No True Scotsman fallacy?
What would you say the objective criteria for a 'True Christian' is? And is this a personal opinion, or does the bible back this consistently across most or all translations? What verses?
I'll grant you that it is fallacious to lump all Christians together in this, but I'm not talking to all Christians at the moment- I'm talking to you, who has repeatedly proposed and lent vocal support to courses of action that are directly oppressive of gays.
And none of this answers a more important, overarching question: Why focus on the gays? Aren't there countless sins committed as or more frequently than homosexuality? Where are the crusades against all those? What is it about gays that makes them such a huge target and such a big deal for Christians in general- even if you aren't oppressing them as a whole, you're certainly decrying and defaming and shaming them almost unanimously.
The Lightning Thief insists its contents are true on the very first page, and yet, it's clearly a work a fiction. The same principle applies. Why don't you give actual evidence as to why homosexuality is a choice, instead using an old, and irrelevant book.
Yes it does. If you're gay or a lesbian you don't deserve to be told you're wrong. I mean, God loves everyone and I refuse to believe that he would send people to hell for LOVING. What kind of God does that make him? The only thing that isn't right in this argument is telling people how to live their lives. Learn to love, people.
Of course. Just like showing disapproval of black people would make youa bigot. If you dshowed disapproval of homosexuality you would be fine. But disapproval of homosexuals is wrong.
This isn't fair. I know I am not supposed to compare you to Nazis, but when you want to exactly what Nazis did I have a hard time not comparing you to them.
We are just exiling them. The Isrealities did the same thing and it was sanctioned by God. God killed the homos so exiling them is ok. I saw a homosexual the other day and it was disgusting. I against it! Bible against it!
It depends on how you voiced the disapproval. Hate speech isn't tolerated under law, but there is still room for opinion. If one sees the homosexual lifestyle as "nasty" or simply "unorthodox" then they are entitled to hold to their opinion, until these opinion are pressed against someone who wishes not to hear them.
I'm not understanding why you are disputing me. I have made the assessment that one would be a bigot depending on how they voice their speech. I never said anything about a bigot clinging to prejudice.
Disregard the rhetoric I interjected regarding clinging to prejudice; it has distracted you from my point. Namely, my counter argument was that being identified as a bigot does not preclude one from holding and expressing the views that make one a bigot. Nor do I think that it matters to whom the views are being expressed and if they are met with agreement or discomfort; the views themselves are still by definition bigoted.
I see, that is a strict application of definition then. Not sure I can entirely counter that. I guess the only question left to ask is if bigoted views inherently make the presenter of the views bigoted.
That distinction was never in dispute by myself, only our claim that being labeled a bigot was equitable to not being permitted to hold and/or express bigoted views. With respect to that matter, I rest my case.
I gave an intelligent response? Did I not? Actually hate speech is still protected by the 1st amendment! Actually hate speech doesn't exist it is just a liberal plot.
because they are basically saying that one cannot have an opinion on the subject.
Not really, in most cases when people say that it's because they assume that there is no rationale for disapproving of them, which there really isn't. If you're against homosexuals kinky stuff because your holy book says so, that's not bigoted. However, I don't see how someone can feel disapproval of someone based on that person's preferences alone (without taking their actions into account) and still not do it for bigoted reasons (which would make them a bigot).
Then, again, if the voicing of disapproval is satirical, then they certainly aren't necessarily bigots.
This really does depend on the context, so no it does not make you a bigot.
Good job, you quoted the most overused argument on this issue. Proud of yourself? One thing you should really try is loving everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. I could sit here and hate you for being an asshole, but I'm choosing to think that the stick you have up your butt is just a little bit stuck. Maybe one day you can learn to pull it out.
I don't hate gays. I hate what some of them do. "Hate the sin. Love the sinner." That's what God says we should do. Anyone who hate's gays is not a Christian. I can believe that someone is a sinner without hating them. Unfortunately, many homosexuals think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a hater. This is simply not true.
Anyone who has said that they hate the sin and not the sinner hasn't stood up under close scrutiny. Eventually, they reveal that the hate the sinner. But, I agree that it is possible, so I will take your word for it. You are the first person who doesn't hate gays.
Unfortunately, many homosexuals think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a hater.
You are wrong about this though. It isn't about disagreeing with them. It is about saying they commit the one sin that Jesus didn't fulfill when he was sacrificed.
