• 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!

Slander in Politics

If a person smears a Christian as a "homophobe," should that person returh fire?

  • Yes. If they call you a homophobe you should be able to comment on their morals/etc.

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • No, they shouldn't return fire because they deserve it.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Simply ignore the smears and continue debating.

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • How about we show some respect and NOT smear eachother?

    Votes: 14 51.9%

  • Don't know/Other

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • Total voters
    27
teamosil said:
What are you talking about? I'm explaining why the "hate the sin, love the sinner" line doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...
By declaring it it is wrong. You claim the Christian is bigoted, by which you mean wrong and prejudiced, because it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
By declaring it it is wrong. You claim the Christian is bigotry, by which you mean wrong and prejudiced, because it is wrong.
Click to expand...

"The Christian is bigotry"? What does that mean? I claim that anybody who denegrates another demographic group is engaging in bigotry regardless of what rationalization they've cooked up. What they're thinking isn't really relevant, it's what they do and say that matters.
 
misterman said:
I don't consider "homophobe" an insult, just an observation.
Click to expand...
There are many things I can say about liberals, and when they take offense to it, call it an "observation."
Wiggen said:
Yeah. Right.
Click to expand...
RE: "Yeah. Right."
misterman said:
Not quite.Assuming for a moment that it's possible to simply view homosexuality as a sin without all that other stuff. Plenty of Christians (but not all) view it as a sin AND display an irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Plenty of them don't. Christians hate the sin, not the sinner. The Bible clearly states to hate the sin and not the sinner. So no, don't try to twist this around and say "plenty" of Christian have an "irrational" fear, or that they hate Christians. You're wrong.
teamosil said:
I don't think anybody cares what rationalizations somebody has going through their heads when they engage in hate speech. Bigotry is bigotry. I'm sure back in slavery times there were tons of slave owners who told themselves that slavery was in the best interests of the slaves. Doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Click to expand...
Don't try to equate being a Christian who views it as a sin as engaging in hate speech/bigotry. Your kind of sick reasoning is what gives liberals a bad rap.
 
Wake said:
Don't try to equate being a Christian who views it as a sin as engaging in hate speech/bigotry. Your kind of sick reasoning is what gives liberals a bad rap.
Click to expand...

If they want to sit there and think it's a sin, they're free to do so to their heart's content and I have no issue with that. By all means, they're totally free to avoid engaging in sex with their own gender. Obviously.

Now, if they start going around lashing out at others and trying to impose their judgments on other people by supporting bans on same sex marriage or by spreading hate speech or whatever, then they are most definitely engaging in bigotry. Doesn't matter what religion they are. Religion isn't some kind of shield that removes a person's responsibility for their actions.
 
teamosil said:
"The Christian is bigotry"? What does that mean? I claim that anybody who denegrates another demographic group is engaging in bigotry regardless of what rationalization they've cooked up. What they're thinking isn't really relevant, it's what they do and say that matters.
Click to expand...
Sorry I don't proofread my posts and frequently edit and rearrange them without paying enough attention to make sure they still make sense as a whole.

But you prove my point. Your conclusion is it is wrong for Christians to treat homosexuality as it if it is immoral and your premise is that homosexuality is not immoral. It is question begging on your part.

The demographic point is meaningless, if we class robbers as a demographic it doesn't mean we are bigoted to treat them as immoral.
 
teamosil said:
What are you talking about? I'm explaining why the "hate the sin, love the sinner" line doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...
For a San Fransisco liberal, you certainly are being close-minded. You don't understand Christianity because you're ignorant, thus you can't understand "hate the sin, not the sinner," which is one of the hallmarks of Christianity. Instead, your wires are crossed, and you equate the Christian scriptures that state homosexuality is a sin to "bigotry, hate, hate speech, whatever." Liberals speak of being understanding, yet your behavior and inability to understand/respect Christianity/Christians betrays your cause. What next? Will you call me a woman-hater for being against prostitution? Or maybe try to jab me with "bigoted prude" for being against fornication. Your hypocrisy betrays what liberals claim to be about.
 
Wessexman said:
Your conclusion is it is wrong for Christians to treat homosexuality as it if it is immoral and your premise is that homosexuality is not immoral. It is question begging on your part.
Click to expand...

They certainly are free to treat homosexuality as though they think it is immoral. By all means. Nobody has ever proposed anything that would require them to engage in homosexual acts or even say that they think it is moral or anything. They just can't go around trying to hurt people or deny people rights because they don't approve of their sexual orientation. To do so would be bigotry plain and simple.
 
Wake said:
For a San Fransisco liberal, you certainly are being close-minded. You don't understand Christianity because you're ignorant, thus you can't understand "hate the sin, not the sinner," which is one of the hallmarks of Christianity. Instead, your wires are crossed, and you equate the Christian scriptures that state homosexuality is a sin to "bigotry, hate, hate speech, whatever." Liberals speak of being understanding, yet your behavior and inability to understand/respect Christianity/Christians betrays your cause. What next? Will you call me a woman-hater for being against prostitution? Or maybe try to jab me with "bigoted prude" for being against fornication. Your hypocrisy betrays what liberals claim to be about.
Click to expand...

You are just completely ignoring the central distinction. If they want to believe whatever they want, that's fine by me. I only consider it bigotry when they start to lash out to try to hurt people for being different than them or trying to deny equal rights to groups of people that are different than them. Again, I do not care what they think, I care what they do.
 
teamosil said:
They certainly are free to treat homosexuality as though they think it is immoral. By all means. Nobody has ever proposed anything that would require them to engage in homosexual acts or even say that they think it is moral or anything. They just can't go around trying to hurt people or deny people rights because they don't approve of their sexual orientation. To do so would be bigotry plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Why? You are simply begging the question by assuming the Christian is wrong. If practicing homosexuality is immoral and is morally inferior to heterosexuality then this totally changes whether or not the Christian is wrong.
 
Wessexman said:
Why? You are simply begging the question by assuming the Christian is wrong. If practicing homosexuality is immoral and is morally inferior to heterosexuality then this totally changes whether or not the Christian is wrong.
Click to expand...

It is totally irrelevant whether Christianity is "wrong" or not. That has nothing to do with anything. Maybe some people think it is immoral not to give 50% of your income to hunger relief. Certainly a very compelling case can be made that saving a child from starvation is more important than that starbucks no fat latte, right? Does that mean that we should go around passing laws punishing people who don't give 50% of their income to hunger relief and whatnot?
 
teamosil said:
It is totally irrelevant whether Christianity is "wrong" or not. That has nothing to do with anything. Maybe some people think it is immoral not to give 50% of your income to hunger relief. Certainly a very compelling case can be made that saving a child from starvation is more important than that starbucks no fat latte, right? Does that mean that we should go around passing laws punishing people who don't give 50% of their income to hunger relief and whatnot?
Click to expand...

Some people don't think Intellectual Property rights are real property rights. Law is bound up with morality. Now you are simply assuming that the Christian's doesn't have any input in this. That is fine, but you have to argue it, not assume it. At all times you have just assumed the Christian is wrong and his moral position is to be ignored.
 
Wessexman said:
Some people don't think Intellectual Property rights are real property rights. Law is bound up with morality. Now you are simply assuming that the Christian's doesn't have any input in this. That is fine, but you have to argue it, not assume it. At all times you have just assumed the Christian is wrong and his moral position is to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Again, it has nothing to do with whether Christianity is "wrong" or whatever. The question is whether it is ok for one demographic group to attack another demographic group that did them no harm. It isn't. Period. If the first group is "right" that the second group is immoral or whatever that doesn't change anything.

It wouldn't be ok for Democrats to go around systematically denying Republicans equal rights would it? Or for right handed people to persecute left handed people? Or vice versa? It doesn't matter who is "right", that just isn't an acceptable way to behave.
 
Wessexman said:
Not exactly. That would be a gross oversimplification of what I'm talking about in terms of the social and individual meaning of words like homophobia.
Click to expand...

But you're trying to simplify that meaning yourself too.
 
A ‘smear’, as the word is being used in this poll, is to damage someone's reputation by slandering, making false accusations. The way this poll was written Wake clearly presumes that calling someone that is Christian a homophobe is a smear. That is simply not correct, one who calls himself a Christian may or may not be a homophobe. And what other word would one use other than homophobe that is more accurate and not a swear word or the ilk. All the choices in his poll suffer from the presumption that describing a Christian as a homophobe is a smear. All kinds of people are homophobes, maybe most people are. What is most interesting is that many Christians think that they are being singled out as homophobes. Why is that? That is the part I find interesting.
 
teamosil said:
Now, if they start going around lashing out at others and trying to impose their judgments on other people by supporting bans on same sex marriage or by spreading hate speech or whatever, then they are most definitely engaging in bigotry. Doesn't matter what religion they are. Religion isn't some kind of shield that removes a person's responsibility for their actions.
Click to expand...

They don't have a moral obligation to support something they view as wrong. They also don't have a moral obligation to keep their mouths shut just because someone else may be offended.
 
lizzie said:
They don't have a moral obligation to support something they view as wrong. They also don't have a moral obligation to keep their mouths shut just because someone else may be offended.
Click to expand...

Do you think they are within their rights to demand that government impose their personal moral preferences on others?
 
teamosil said:
No, definitely not. That's why I'm asking.
Click to expand...

You can take my words at face value.

edit to add: You seem to be saying that Christians who don't support gay marriage rights are merely bigots. Bigotry is holding to an opinion blindly. A person who believes that a gay lifestyle is wrong or immoral isn't being bigoted, but thinks this based on his/her religious beliefs. That isn't the same thing as bigotry.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
You can take my words at face value.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. You haven't said anything either way about that topic...

You said they could express being offended and that they didn't need to support something they think is wrong. I'm asking a different question- do they have a right to use government to impose their morals on other people in this situation?
 
teamosil said:
Again, it has nothing to do with whether Christianity is "wrong" or whatever. The question is whether it is ok for one demographic group to attack another demographic group that did them no harm. It isn't. Period. If the first group is "right" that the second group is immoral or whatever that doesn't change anything.

It wouldn't be ok for Democrats to go around systematically denying Republicans equal rights would it? Or for right handed people to persecute left handed people? Or vice versa? It doesn't matter who is "right", that just isn't an acceptable way to behave.
Click to expand...
This entirely depends on definitions of harm and the role of government and all that sort of thing. You even make the claim that it not okay or acceptable to force their morality on others, which is ironic since these terms like okay and acceptable must be moralistic. I'm not saying you are completely wrong, I'm must saying you have to argue your position and not assume it.
 
1st Amendment = right to free speech - not the right to be heard.

Just like Justice Scalia said Friday about complaints about Corporations being granted the right to unlimited spending on political ads - "Don't like the ruling then turn the TV channel, go to another radio station, ignore the newspaper ads."

In other words.......

I offer the same advice to those who believe that their religious beliefs have been criticized because others disagree with the tenets that are frequently espoused by its members.

We don't see each other's beliefs as personal tenets, but rather shortcomings. Therein lies our sin.

Humanity hasn't evolved enough to adopt, "Live an let live as long as one's rights truly havent been infringed on by others.". People have a very strange sense of personal boundaries. Many believe what goes on in the privacy of their neighbors home, despite the evidence their rights have not been infringed on...attack their neighbors anyway.

Witch hunts are alive and well in 2012.
 
lizzie said:
You can take my words at face value.

edit to add: You seem to be saying that Christians who don't support gay marriage rights are merely bigots. Bigotry is holding to an opinion blindly. A person who believes that a gay lifestyle is wrong or immoral isn't being bigoted, but thinks this based on his/her religious beliefs. That isn't the same thing as bigotry.
Click to expand...

Simply, I don't think a religious belief is sufficient basis for bigoted behavior.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Simply, I don't think a religious belief is sufficient basis for bigoted behavior.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is bigoted, as there is a basis for their belief, whether rational or irrational as you may yourself believe it is. Their behavior isn't really behavior, but is expression of thought and opinion. Behavior would be something that is concrete and enforceable. Thoughts and opinions don't fit the definition of behaviors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom