Torillian said:

Seems like a perfectly reasonable grievance if being homosexual can count as a disadvantaged family, than being objectly against it would be one as well.

You analogy is flawed, these people are being punished for their beliefs. Homosexuality is not a belief, it's a deviant sexual behaviour like pedophilia, for example. Though some say it's sexual orientation too, so it might be eventually considered acceptable as well :D

Torillian said:

They're being punished for their behavior because it makes an unfit living situation for certain children.  If you can punish all gay couples with impunity I see no reason Christians can't be dealt with in the same manner if they would be unfit parents for closeted youths.  Personally I find their stance much more morally reprehensible than any gay couple.

Belifies, not behaviour. Didn't I even bold the word last time? Unless you want to punish them for being heterosexual...

Sigh, the difference is that homosexuality doesn't involve anyone that can't legally give consent.  There's a very clear and obvious line there between homosexuality and other what you'd call "deviant sexual behaviours".

And what exactly does legality has to do with strictly medical definition? It's deviant, it's sexual, it's behaviour. You may compare it to zoophilia if you want, it's usually legal in most countries.

So your earlier post was not lazy? Then perhaps you can enlighten me on what asking the exact same questions that I answered just a day before you asked considered. In a reasonable argument, arguments are built upon, not repeated. I have several things I could call it, but I'll let you decide which one it is.

If you're presenting a hypothetical, and then complaining that I'm going down that road to show WHY your hypothetical is not sound, then it means you're either A. Not confident with the soundness of your own hypothetical, or B. Not wanting it to be questioned. I can see you're backpedalling now and claiming it as a moral issue only. So why did you compare it to alcohol? There is a distinct difference between something morally wrong and something physically damaging for a child.

See, this is where your argument on morality is becoming unstuck. You're claiming that forcing views onto others is wrong, but totally neglect the fact that parents as viewed as authoritative figures, and in such a stance, the line between opinion and ruling becomes small to obsolete. How exactly are you expecting a talk about opinion to a child to be? "Son, I don't think you should be gay because it's wrong, but that's only my opinion". Doesn't exactly sound like the authoritative figure, does it, especially one that GUARANTEES their child wont be gay. When have you seen a child QUESTION parental authority? They've certainly acted out on it, with fear of repercussion such as being punished. However, that is STILL a lot of influence. Authority takes a lot of responsibility in on itself, and you'll see in a lot of society that qualifications for authority over others require some kind of training in such, or some kind of oath to be taken. That being said, you see nothing wrong with children being taught questionable, morals by their parents, like that being gay is wrong because they believe it, or if whites are genetically superior to blacks because they believe it, or that girls only belong in the kitchen because they believe it? Tell me, how would one who has parental authority act on a child who is showing homosexual tendancies, WITHOUT any influence by their parental authority on what is deemed absolute and what is deemed debatable, especially a parent who GUARANTEES their child will not be gay? Would you consider ANY punishment on this child for being gay as bigoted? 

Once again, I have to bring up the definition of bigotry:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "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"

Note the term intolerance, the action defining the complement of toleration. Definition:

Toleration is "the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves. One can meaningfully speak of tolerating, ie of allowing or permitting, only if one is in a position to disallow”

This IS the definition of bigotry that you've completely missed. If one is "in a position to disallow" (eg. PARENTAL AUTHORITY), then that is regarded as intolerance. Treatment via intolerance is one path of bigotry (the other being hatred).

So, explain to me once again, HOW is my justification of bigotry misused?

I guess my biggest mistake was attempting to bring sanity and civility into this debate. You throw incredibly insutling, degrading terms around and expect people to shut up due to that. I have beliefs about right and wrong and will teach those to my children. If my Children fall short of what I teach them, I will still love and respect them. I'm no bigot because of that, nor is anybody else who does this... your argument holds no water and is incredibly insulting to any parent who believes in the brand of morality you choose to degrade and attack. You are the only one in this discussion who has attacked in this manner, I have from the beginning attempted to introduce a more civil tone and explain to you how differing viewpoionts can live in harmony. I am saddened to see you don't agree.

It's not going to be right just because you say it's right. I've already explained IN DETAILED TERMS how intolerance through parental authority is classed as bigotry. You can deny it all you like, but it's not going to make it any less the case. But think about this; living in your own world where everything that you do is right doesn't meant you're not hurting others, and that's what many on the anti-gay side seriously fail to see.  

Once again, illogical reasoning. People argue in different ways, and while my responses are more passionate, it doesn't make them wrong. Every argument you've provided, I've answered back with a logical reason as to why your argument does not stand. Now you're resorting to the "Well I'm more civil, so I win", card? I'm sorry, I thought I was trying to argue my point with someone who uses argumentative reasoning from grade school.

If your morality is to show intolerance towards homosexuality through means of teaching that to your child, then yes, it IS going to be attacked for what it is. It IS bigotry. You'll have to deal with being named a bigot, should you follow a similar path to the previous guy. Denial is just the first stage of a long path to acceptance. I'm sure that Hitler thought that his morals were right and just, too....

I'm going to push this question until you answer it: explain to me once again, HOW is my justification of bigotry misused? 

Stop tiptoeing around the subject in question and answer it. If you cannot, then I kindly suggest that you keep your mouth shut, because sidestepping the original issue that you brought up is not helping your argument one bit.

---

To everyone else who might have a creationist viewpoint on this subject, I have to point out: Those who wish to teach their child that homosexuality is wrong, while at the same time pushing to put creationism in science classes "to give children every point of view" is the downright definition of hypocrisy.

Your lack of understanding on simple concepts is really quite comical, I actually laughed out loud when I read your reply. If I teach my kids that it's wrong for them to have sex before they get married, that's not by definition bigotry against people who have sex outside of marriage in any sense of the word, it's simply me teaching them right from wrong. If I teach them that it's wrong to use curse words, that's not bigotry against people who use curse words. If I teach my kids not to eat too much candy, it's not bigotry against people who eat too much candy. By your asinine definition, it would literally be bigotry to teach my kids anything at all related to behavior. Your insane logical leap is beyond reason.