Yes, and here the bigotry is religiously-derived bigotry that gay people are inferior and immoral, which is held despite the evidence that (1) homosexuality is part genetics, part epi-genetics, and (2) there is a complete lack of evidence that being gay is "immoral" (and how could there be objective evidence on morality, when neither "natural rights" or "morality" derived therefrom can be proven to be objectively real?)
So much for your "gotcha"
You're also focusing on just one definition of bigotry. Here's another:
Full Definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
(Merriam-Webster)
You omitted the "especially" portion, which accompanies most dictionary definitions of bigotry.
I wish semantic points weren't so frequently necessary in these debates, but words matter. Instead of addressing the disgusting desire to strip protections from or prevent protections from being given to gay people from prejudice, you want to argue about whether or not I should have only used one fraction of the total definition of "bigotry".....
:doh
And so we use, not "misuse" the word quite often. I wish we didn't have to do that either, but maybe if the right could jettison these bigotted social conservative positions, we could all stop worry about it.
Well, it wasn't a "gotcha" response to you at all. I was merely pointing out that liberals throw around that word like candy, and rarely do they truly understands what it means. As to the Merriam definition, and Oxford for that matter, you do realize that the definition of bigotry has actually "evolved" over the years to what it is now. Words tend to do that; and dictionaries among many other entities are not immune to political correctness anymore than you're average run-of-the-mill do gooder. As far as my correct and historically accurate definition of bigotry, the key is,
evidence to the contrary, and although I admire your efforts to list several theories on the cause of homosexuality, the most compelling evidence for its cause remains, environment. Regardless, even if we did take any one of the current theories, they, as a whole, are just theories.. Lawyers love theories, and courts will entertain them, happens daily, but rarely do they convict without supporting evidence that strongly, without any doubt, support the theory in question. I think intellectually, one must concede that neither of your theories meets that burden, thus, irrefutable evidence to the contrary remains - "Anyone's guess".
You talk of semantics, and yet use the most used philosophical semantic of them all by introducing the concept of morality.. One need not be guided by a moral compass to hold fairly a position of distain for something they personally find reprehensible for any number of reasons, some may be religious, some a question of evolution, some a concern for the well-being of society as a whole, some simply find it icky, and some care for the well being of those afflicted, and reject any efforts to normalize the behavior, instead opting for methods that might help, or find ways to prevent it, just like any other mental disorder. I personally think that homosexuals, and especially transsexuals, have been hurt way more by the social-psychological community than helped. They find ways to justify things like physical mutilation, and yet reject other therapies that are by any stretch, much less invasive, and permanent. All in the name of progress.. Joseph Mengela would be proud! <---does that qualify?
Tim-
