• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Intolerance Wrong?

Is Intolerance Wrong?

  • I honestly don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42
You're avoiding my question.

Where does it say that "Acceptable intolerance has to be based on something more known to be harmful"?

You?

You have trouble understanding direct answers? Allow me to repeat with highlights:

Don't know of any rule book (Translation: no such rule), and you're free to be as huge an asshole as you want to be (No rule against it.). But you asked if it was wrong, and not what rules or laws were. If you're being intolerant of something that is none of your business, that isn't harmful to others, and breaks no laws, well, you can't call that equal to something that does one or more of those things.

Now, if it still isn't clear to you. You asked for my OPINION and I gave you my OPINION.

Now, if you say it is fine to be intolerant of anyone, would it be acceptable for me to say who says so? I know it is you who is saying so, as I know there is no rule book. Now, stop the silliness and try making a case yourself.
 
We are intolerant of murder, intolerance is not wrong in all cases.
 
I dont really think the use of the word matters as much as the message that is conveyed.
The message that's being conveyed, is that a political position is necessarily wrong if it's intolerant.
 
My main message is that I don't think it is inherintly wrong to be intolerant of SSM. There are those who scream that's it's evil and intolerant to differ on the matter of SSM.
 
My main message is that I don't think it is inherintly wrong to be intolerant of SSM. There are those who scream that's it's evil and intolerant to differ on the matter of SSM.

then why didn't you say so in your OP???

This is a simple question:

Is intolerance wrong?

The question arises because people have a tendency to connote intolerance with something negative.

??
 
My main message is that I don't think it is inherintly wrong to be intolerant of SSM. There are those who scream that's it's evil and intolerant to differ on the matter of SSM.

Irrational intolerance is wrong, just as limiting the ability of another group of people do so something for irrational reasons is always wrong. The problem is not the intolerance, it is that it is for irrational reasons.
 
Irrational intolerance is wrong, just as limiting the ability of another group of people do so something for irrational reasons is always wrong. The problem is not the intolerance, it is that it is for irrational reasons.

I can't recall any logical nor rational reasons to oppose SSM, being offered anywhere in this forum. Its all about religion, or some nonesense about society falling apart.
 
My main message is that I don't think it is inherintly wrong to be intolerant of SSM. There are those who scream that's it's evil and intolerant to differ on the matter of SSM.

The problem for me is not what I consider your intolerance, but that some wish to impose their intolerence on others. Some things make sense to do so, like murder and pedophila. Others not so much, like SSM and racial bigotry. No one will force you to marry someone of the same sex, or accept it in your household. But to push that intolerance outside yourself? Well, I don't believe you have the right to do that.
 
not only that, but some folks want to even turn their bigotry & intolerance into law.

that..is very troubling.

I agree. Anyone wanting to that is troubling.
 
The problem for me is not what I consider your intolerance, but that some wish to impose their intolerence on others. Some things make sense to do so, like murder and pedophila. Others not so much, like SSM and racial bigotry. No one will force you to marry someone of the same sex, or accept it in your household. But to push that intolerance outside yourself? Well, I don't believe you have the right to do that.

I am considering moving over to Digsbe's pov in regards to SSM. However, that will not change what the scriptures clearly say about homosexuality. I also realize that America isn't a theocracy, and if I were in a Muslim nation that pushed their more traditional Muslim beliefs upon us, I'd undoubtedly take issue, as well.
 
I am considering moving over to Digsbe's pov in regards to SSM. However, that will not change what the scriptures clearly say about homosexuality.....

you mean, what the Bible says about homosexual sex....right Wake?
 
I am considering moving over to Digsbe's pov in regards to SSM. However, that will not change what the scriptures clearly say about homosexuality. I also realize that America isn't a theocracy, and if I were in a Muslim nation that pushed their more traditional Muslim beliefs upon us, I'd undoubtedly take issue, as well.

I hate to tell you but some don't think the Bible really says anything about homosexuality let alone SSM. However, that doesn't really matter as Americans are not required to be Chrisitians, as you pointed out. As a Christian, I bleive the Bible is the beginning of the discussion and not the end. I know any uncertainty makes people nervous, but we can't change that we simply have changed how we view the Bible. To do otherwise would be to be more like the extremists we all like to hate.
 
I hate to tell you but some don't think the Bible really says anything about homosexuality let alone SSM....

so when the Bible talks about "when a man lies down with another man, as he would a woman"...that's not referring to gay-sex?
 
so when the Bible talks about "when a man lies down with another man, as he would a woman"...that's not referring to gay-sex?

Ciontext. If you read the entire thing, that section is discussing all kinds of things not to be done during a certain period of time, and includes heterosexual sex.

Romans has mostly been altered by King James, and most more modern interpretatiosn build off of King James. There are good books on this, but the only site I know of is Relious tolerance.com. And they are too superficial and don't give the complete explinations.

The only point I have is that what the Bible actually does or doesn't say is less clear than many may like it to be.
 
Ciontext. If you read the entire thing, that section is discussing all kinds of things not to be done during a certain period of time, and includes heterosexual sex....

Leviticus condemns those who engage in gay-sex, to death. This is a fact.
 
if you tolerate everything, you become undefended against all dangers and difficulties in the life..anybody may abuse your emotions , humanitarianism,your goodwill etc..
 
Last edited:
The intolerance and hypocrisy in the name of tolerance displayed in this thread would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
 
The intolerance and hypocrisy in the name of tolerance displayed in this thread would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Which posts are you referring to?
 
This is a simple question:

Is intolerance wrong?

The question arises because people have a tendency to connote intolerance with something negative.

not inherently. there are, in fact, philosophers who claim that tolerance is wrong.
 
I am intolerant of intolerance.
 
Leviticus condemns those who engage in gay-sex, to death. This is a fact.

In context of a particular ritual observance. It includes many things, including heterosexual sex.
 
Intolerance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
 
I am intolerant of intolerance.

That's a favorite self description of many contemporary libs. Clever, too, since it allows them to declare their opponents intolerant, while being intolerant of their opponents. Preserves their feeling of moral superiority, nicely as well, which is of course the attraction to being a liberal.
 
Back
Top Bottom