Okay, John...

"What is your definition of bigot?"

It's the dictionary definition. Here it is it its entirety, straight from dictionary.com: bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, isn't that interesting? ;-) By golly, I think we have a whole collection of suspected at least part-time bigots on this thread, because most of you here ARE utterly intolerant of those whose opinion differs from your own! My, my. However, I am certainly not going to call you "bigots", because I hardly see how it would help encourage you to be more tolerant of one another. It would just get your backs up.




In what way is denying basic rights to gay people not bigoted?

I don't think bigoted is the right word for that at all, going by the dictionary definition of the word "bigot". I would say that denying basic rights to anyone...gays or otherwise...is unjust, and in the case of the USA, it is also unconstitutional. This did not, sadly, keep Americans from denying certain basic rights to Blacks, women, Indians, Orientals, Hispanics, poor people, and gays for a very lengthy historical period.



Can you refute the statement that any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people do in bed?

Why would I wish to refute it? It's a conversation about other people's sexual preferences and habits, obviously.


Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?

It depends on how the interest expresses itself and toward whom and under what specific conditions. Buggery was an illegal act for a long time, probably due to religious beliefs, possibly also due to health concerns. Now it is not illegal in most places, in fact it seems to be enjoying much popularity among porn merchants.

All society is deeply concerned about the sexual abuse of children...and there is good reason for such concern.

All society is concerned about rape and other forms of sexual violence, and there is good reason for such concern.

On the other hand, I think people have no business peering into other people's bedrooms, as it were, and bothering them about their private sexual lives...whether or not they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

So, it's a complex subject, John. Your question does not address it in a relevant manner, but is crafted to presuppose something (that the people you are disagreeing with on this thread are "sick"). As such, it's a useless question with no good intentions behind it in the first place.

Would you be taking the tone you are if the discussion was about blacks or women?

Yes. I would be objecting to the blind personal prejudice being demonstrated by various people IN the discussion toward various other people IN the discussion...but not necessarily toward blacks or women.   I would be objecting to character assassination, insults, sneering, contempt, name-calling, and personal invective directed toward the people IN the discussion.


Do you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else?

Yes, I do.

*****

You are behaving like someone in the Spanish Inquisition, John. You have ALREADY decided in your own "righteous" mind who the terrible sinners and heretics are here, and your only concern now is to catch them, condemn them, silence them, and punish them. That is what poisons the discussion. The anger it causes in those you target results in some of your opponents attacking you back in a similar manner. That further poisons the discussion.

You are like two sets of people at a party pissing in the same punch bowl, then complaining bitterly that the punch is no good, and that it's all the other guys' fault.