How do you define religious intolerance? Any real world examples or how it has impacted you personally?

I'm a Christian writing a Bible Study for Christians, and am looking for how you define Christian religious intolerance. I'd like to share specific examples of how we act intolerant to help Christians clearly see the negative impact is causes to those around us. Thanks for anything you can share on is topic.

Tags: Intolerance, intolerance, intolerant, religious

Views: 1305

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ok, so the links below the google search seem to be from the google search.

The first one ( is a blog that argues against gay marriage on the grounds that it is a threat to gay sexual freedom.  He states that in a time where women have far more liberty to be sluts without being judged, gay marriage will lead to expectations that gays will be more monogamous.  Uhm, I can see how that might seem coherent to you, but it sure as heck isn't coherent to me.  He's also against gay marriage for religious reasons - feeling that gays shouldn't even try to conform to standards set up by religions that hate them; so this argument isn't free from religious colouring.

The second one makes no reference as to why a gay person would be against gay marriage and in fact seems to be put together by the likes of the authors of conservapedia - speaking about 'sanctity of marriage' and other such incoherent bullshit.

The third one takes a similar tack to the first, going so far as to suggest that the hiv/aids epidemic was a unifying force that gave gays more social cohesion, a cohesion that may be lost if gays assimilate into traditional style same-sex monogamy.  Seriously, did you even read these articles?  This person waxes nostalgic over the HIV/AIDS epidemic - and you call that a coherent argument against gay marriage?

The final article states that not all gays are interested in pursuing gay marriage (a given, and I fall in that group), and those that oppose it do so for 'moral, political, or religious' reasons.  Unfortunately he doesn't offer an example of a political argument, and the example he offers of a moral argument is actually a religious one.

So, John, I don't believe there is a coherent argument against gay marriage - although there does seem to be a coherent argument against gays being obliged to marry.  I don't believe that such an argument exists because I have seen no evidence of one.  This leaves you, the theist once again, making the claim.

If you feel such an argument exists, please provide the actual argument and let us examine whether or not it is coherent.

He states that in a time where women have far more liberty to be sluts without being judged, gay marriage will lead to expectations that gays will be more monogamous.

You didn't explain why you didn't find this coherent. It is a commonly held concern within the gay community that the government in the UK is seeking to legalise gay marriage to change or influence behaviours thought to be found in the gay community. Have a read.

The passing of laws to influence individual behaviour is a real concern. The Conservative government here, the government of family values, is widely reported as supporting the change in law so that it will make the gay community more monogomous. People, like the blogger whose comments you've read, are concerned and object. Uhm, there is nothing incoherent in this, please give us the benefit of your insight. I won't be replying because of your troll-like behaviour on recent posts.



You didn't explain why you didn't find this coherent.

I'm surprised it really requires a statement.  

First, what does women's liberty to behave like sluts really have to do with same-sex marriage or his argument?  If anything, it works against his argument.  Straight women can get married, yet he admits that their liberty to be slutty is growing, so clearly eligibility for marriage and the liberty to be slutty are not mutually exclusive things.  Same with straight fetishists, I suppose.

Second, marriage equality doesn't legally force anyone to do anything they don't want to do.  It also stands on a fundamental principle of equality, regardless of any perceived behavioural implications (which is a specious argument to begin with).    

Even if we accept the premise that allowing same-sex marriage damages gay sexual liberty, at least in terms of societal expectations (which I don't), his stance is hypocritical.  It basically boils down to maintaining status quo to promote the sort of behaviour he celebrates, and to lock out the sort of behaviour he discourages.  That's not coherent; it's hypocritical.  At least in the converse scenario, individuals are free to choose for themselves how they want to live.

Also, the article seems to exclude consideration for lesbians who are also affected by same-sex marriage laws.  Unless he doesn't consider them women (who are apparently at more liberty to behave like sluts without fear of judgment), or he wants them to go suck a few dicks.

I imagine the article was not 100% serious, even if the author truthfully does not support same-sex marriage.  If it was serious, that's unfortunate

@Kris. I don't agree with the arguement either. It may be hypocritical, who knows. But it is coherent. The state can and does influence behaviour through the laws it passes and there are some members of the gay community who are concerned that the underlying reason for granting gay marriage is to influence behaviour. That is certainly the case for straight marriage isn't it? Pair bonding started off as a naturally evolved arrangement to secure that genes would be passed on, the female of the species needing help to raise very dependent babies. It has become a political institution now that the state has intervened and decreed that marriage benefits society and to this end it becomes a legal entity with obligations and benefits.

As well as the links I have provided to show concerns in the UK, it seems thatin the US it is also a concern for some for similar reasons.

The state can and does influence behaviour through the laws...

There is no denying that it can, but that doesn't mean that it would be the case here.  Much of the pressure for same-sex marriage began with same-sex couples wanting to get married, so there is clear evidence that the behaviour in question already exists within the gay community at least to some extent.

So the question is, would legalizing same-sex marriage cause a change in behaviour, or would it simply allow a change in behaviour for which there is already intrinsic motivation?  Those are two very different things.  There is plenty of evidence to support the the latter case.  If we want to recognize the former case as coherent, it requires some evidence.

Even if we include the case in the UK, the PM also recognized it as a human rights issue.  Saying that it reinforces traditional values of marriage in the gay community implies that those traditional values are already there and that the shift in law would back them up.  Again, it's a question of whether or not the change in law causes a change in behaviour, or simply allows a change in behaviour for which there was preexisting motive.

But even then, this doesn't address what I see as the largest point of incoherence in the statement that began this dialogue: the author recognizes that tolerance for liberal sexuality and the legal eligibility to marry are not mutually exclusive, at least not in the case of women.  Conversely, the ineligibility to be legally married and the ability to live in a monogamous-like relationship are not mutually exclusive.  Social expectations of LGBT people are going to change regardless.  

Back when people couldn't even tell the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles, it really didn't matter how gay people tried to fit social relationship norms: they were going to get rejected anyway.  Now that people are realizing that 'gay' does not equate to 'immoral-pervert-sex-maniac' people's expectations will change with or without marriage.  Parents, for instance, are waking up to the fact that the dream of their son settling down and starting a family doesn't have to die just because he's gay.  Marriage isn't required for that, especially in the case of the UK which you provided, where civil partnerships grant most of the same rights.

If he is pointing out a fault, it is not with the law, but rather with the mindset of members of the gay community who are chasing marriage to begin with, and members of society at large who encourage this behaviour.  The point is, no good case has been made that the law, in itself, actually would cause this behaviour.

So I stand by the argument not being coherent, at least not if it is to serve as a criticism of same-sex marriage becoming legal.  

RE: "Much of the pressure for same-sex marriage began with same-sex couples wanting to get married, so there is clear evidence that the behaviour in question already exists within the gay community at least to some extent."

I have to question - and admittedly, I have no answer, just the question - how much of that is because they want to, and how much because they've been told they can't?

Archaeopteryx, the answer to your second question is: nearly none. Consider for a moment what everyone is taught: that when you grow up and fall in love, you marry that one special person.

To all:

Why does no one realize that gays and lesbians are going to have the same expectations as their straight counterparts?

Some are not going to want to settle down. Some are going to want to marry. But because societies have been poisoned by religions no one allows gays and lesbians to be "normal" and marry.

Kris. I don't want to flog this to death. I would support gay marriage, no question. But is pointless discussing whether a change in the law would or would not change behaviour when we can clearly see that even with it as a prospect, behaviour has been changed. It is inevitable. If laws didn't change behaviour, what would be the point? I'm not be unnecessasarily argumentative, but it is just not the case that there is no non religious coherent argument against gay marriage as claimed.

You are flogging it to death.  Suggesting that removing a prohibition will result in creating an obligation is ridiculous - but I wouldn't expect anymore from you.  You are terrified that 'the meat industry' sits in a dark committee somewhere, plotting to bring you to ruin - and now you've got a room full of evil politicians trying to 'trick gays' into safer sexual practices through matrimony.

I'm sure you just started this challenge as another one of your trolls and now you just can't let it go - because no one could be as paranoid as you come across.

...behaviour has been changed.

I've addressed this in my post already.

Why does no one realize that gays and lesbians are going to have the same expectations as their straight counterparts?

It's not necessarily true when talking about certain LGBT subcultures.

@Heather your arguments get sillier and more desperate as a result of deep bitterness and hostility to those that question the ethics of animal slaughter for meat. 

The Government in this country and many others promote marriage becuse they believe it is better for society as a whole. For the same reasons, they support gay marriage, hoping it will provide more stable relationships. Some members of the gay community do not want the right to gay marriage because of the implicit attempt to change behaviour. Some heteroexuals may similarly resent the instituion of marriage. You don't agree, fine. But stop jumping up and down saying it's not coherent just because elsewhere in another discussion I have dared to say that I think slaughtering animals in their billions is unethical. Troll all you like, but I'm not going be put off voicing a resonable point of view just to suit you. I'll remind you that there are many prominent atheists past and present who think similarly to  me - Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Peter Singer, AC Grayling, Einstein. You can describe them as cult members like me if you like, but I think I am in good company.

Carl Sagan wrote:

"Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us."

"...and now you've got a room full of evil politicians trying to 'trick gays' into safer sexual practices through matrimony."

LOL and you call me paranoid! Where did I say anyone was trying to trick gays. There is no trickery. The governenment is quite open about promoting particular behaviours through the planned change in the law to enable gay mariage.

You obsession with bashing any vegan/vegetarian you can find is an embarassment to this forum. You have now reached the stage where you are making up arguments I never made, just to have something to argue about. Calm down please, otherwise you may descend to this sort of thing again

@Heather "Anyway, it's not like I called him [me, that is] an irritating, ignorant fucktard"

Is there any better sign you feel you are losing the argument?


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service