• 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!

"Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences"

Apples and oranges. The reason a gay person would call the Catholic Church bigoted is because of their intolerant stance on homosexuality. Being intolerant of those who are intolerant is the same thing as promoting tolerance. Being intolerant because it's your religion is just being intolerant. If you want to be considered a tolerant person, then you ought to be intolerant of those who promote intolerance. You ought not to be tolerant of those who promote intolerance.

The Catholic Church has a legal right to be intolerant of homosexuality. If they choose to do so, tolerant people have a legal and moral right to be intolerant of the Catholic Church. If they are not, then they are not promoting tolerance.

That's absolutely ridiculous. This is why we're in danger of totalitarianism - opinions like yours become the mainstream in thinking that it's OK to treat people badly because they don't agree with you.

The majority of gay people throughout history have had no problem with the Catholic Church. In fact, aside from those in the Western world, you could make a point that this is still the case today. Not all gays are like the ones you see at Mardi Gras. There are millions of gay people out there who happily choose to stay in the faith and not get married (the same way countless people in the Church can't get married - divorced people, priests, etc). In fact, a huge portion of priests are gay (which is a call that comes from the Bible). The majority of them live and die happily as celibate Catholics.

There are even gays who grew up Catholic, decided to leave the faith and get married anyway, but still respect and tolerate the Church's opinion. Just because you don't actively practice or believe in something, doesn't mean you can't be respectful of it. Many gays agree that gay marriage doesn't make economic, social, or personal sense, just like many straight people believe that heterosexual marriage doesn't make economic, social, or personal sense.

The point is that gay people come in many different styles from different walks of life. Choosing to be an open and proud sexual deviant while parading at Mardi Gras and hating the Church is just one of thousands of lifestyles gays can choose. There are alternatives, like remaining celibate and enjoying other things in life instead, or simply being a proud sexual deviant while parading at Mardi Gras and not hating the Church just for disagreeing with you.

Sorry, but tweeting that you hate the Catholic Church because they don't agree with your point of view on marriage is intolerant. The Church is not intolerant of gay people (as explained above). It simply doesn't allow them to get married (the same way many other Catholics can't get married for various reasons). If a gay person interprets this as a personal attack and goes on a vendetta against the Church, that's the definition of intolerance. The more tolerant thing to do would be what most gay people do; live and let live.
 
That's absolutely ridiculous. This is why we're in danger of totalitarianism - opinions like yours become the mainstream in thinking that it's OK to treat people badly because they don't agree with you.

The majority of gay people throughout history have had no problem with the Catholic Church. In fact, aside from those in the Western world, you could make a point that this is still the case today. Not all gays are like the ones you see at Mardi Gras. There are millions of gay people out there who happily choose to stay in the faith and not get married (the same way countless people in the Church can't get married - divorced people, priests, etc). In fact, a huge portion of priests are gay (which is a call that comes from the Bible). The majority of them live and die happily as celibate Catholics.

There are even gays who grew up Catholic, decided to leave the faith and get married anyway, but still respect and tolerate the Church's opinion. Just because you don't actively practice or believe in something, doesn't mean you can't be respectful of it. Many gays agree that gay marriage doesn't make economic, social, or personal sense, just like many straight people believe that heterosexual marriage doesn't make economic, social, or personal sense.

The point is that gay people come in many different styles from different walks of life. Choosing to be an open and proud sexual deviant while parading at Mardi Gras and hating the Church is just one of thousands of lifestyles gays can choose. There are alternatives, like remaining celibate and enjoying other things in life instead, or simply being a proud sexual deviant while parading at Mardi Gras and not hating the Church just for disagreeing with you.

Sorry, but tweeting that you hate the Catholic Church because they don't agree with your point of view on marriage is intolerant. The Church is not intolerant of gay people (as explained above). It simply doesn't allow them to get married (the same way many other Catholics can't get married for various reasons). If a gay person interprets this as a personal attack and goes on a vendetta against the Church, that's the definition of intolerance. The more tolerant thing to do would be what most gay people do; live and let live.

once again you prove you have factually no idea what free speech is or totalitarianism is or rights or freedoms . . .LMAO

WOW . . .just wow
 
Crusader13 and I had agreed on this. We'd moved past the definition of freedom of speech and were arguing about the definition of intolerance. His point was that, even though it may be free speech, a gay person calling the Catholic Church bigoted and sickening is intolerant in the same sense that the Catholic Church saying "burn all gays" is intolerant. I argue that this is not the case. If the reason you are intolerant of some entity is solely because that entity is intolerant of others, you are not being intolerant. You are, in fact, arguing for tolerance by not tolerating entities that are intolerant. It might sound like it's self refuting, but logically it is not.

It is a similar mental exercise as establishing one rule that says no one is allowed to make rules. It sounds self defeating, but it is perfectly logical and rationally consistent: "The only rule is: No one is allowed to make rules." If social tolerance necessarily requires society to not be intolerant of others, then a tolerant person can be intolerant of those who are intolerant of others.

What does tolerance have to do with free speech? What you have to say does not depend on me or anyone else being tolerant. You also don't have to have any tolerance for anyone else's speech, it doesn't matter. You can be as intolerant as you like, just don't violate any civil or criminal laws. Advocating violence against homosexuals would be an example of using your right to free speech to violate criminal law.
 
That's absolutely ridiculous. This is why we're in danger of totalitarianism - opinions like yours become the mainstream in thinking that it's OK to treat people badly because they don't agree with you.

Define "treating people badly." No one deserves to be injured, arrested, or charged with a crime because of what they believe. Some people absolutely DO deserve to be criticized, shamed, and boycotted because of what they believe: Anyone who is intolerant of people who victimize no one deserve every bit of these things. This is in no way totalitarian. It is kind-hearted members of society teaching the ignorant how to behave.

Don't conflate treating people badly with criticism. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to not be criticized for what you believe.
 
What does tolerance have to do with free speech? What you have to say does not depend on me or anyone else being tolerant. You also don't have to have any tolerance for anyone else's speech, it doesn't matter. You can be as intolerant as you like, just don't violate any civil or criminal laws. Advocating violence against homosexuals would be an example of using your right to free speech to violate criminal law.

I agree 100%. If you want to know how we got on the subject of tolerance, you are welcome to go back and read the conversation between Crusader13 and I.
 
Define "treating people badly."

At a general level, not being tolerant of someone else's beliefs even though they don't affect you in any way.

Some people absolutely DO deserve to be criticized, shamed, and boycotted because of what they believe:

Based on who's judgement? Yours? College SJWs? Donald Trump's? Who gets to determine which beliefs deserve tolerance and which deserve to be shamed? I don't think I like where you're going with this.

If we used the standard liberal/left criteria, Christians would deserve shame for restricting gay marriage but not Muslims for throwing gays off buildings.

Anyone who is intolerant of people who victimize no one deserve every bit of these things.

Gays demonize the Christian faith every damn day, even though it doesn't affect them in any way. Christians preaching that gays will go to hell matters very little to gays since most of them proudly and openly don't believe in God or follow Christian morals anyway. So what we have is a group of people shaming another group of people for not letting them join their group even though they don't want to join in the first place.

This is in no way totalitarian. It is kind-hearted members of society teaching the ignorant how to behave the way we want them to

Totalitarianism.

Neither you nor anyone else has the right to not be criticized for what you believe.

Except gays apparently. You can't criticize them for their lifestyle or beliefs, that would make you a detestable bigot. But when gays offend someone they don't like, it's just them practicing their free speech?

All I can say is thank God Trump is president and you're not. You're more of a dictator than he could ever hope to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom