1. The definition of the word Bigot still does not apply to simply teaching my children right from wrong. I can teach my Children not to do something, while at the same time, teach them the all important values of not judging others, not looking down on others, and treating everyone with love and respect regardless of the other person's background, sexual orientation, skin color, etc. As I see it, the most important point made by Jesus in his life and words was to love others as yourself, never Judge anyone, and treat everyone with dignity because we're all created equal, and we're all viewed equally by God no matter what our faults. In other words, the values I teach my children on how to view and treat others are the exact opposite of teaching them bigotry. Also, if I teach my children that it would be wrong for them to do some action, but they make the choice to go against what I taught them when they are of age to make such choices, I will still love them, accept them and will treat them no differently. This is also the oppsoite of Bigotry, which is at it's core "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. "

2. Your comparison of my morals, first to those of Hitler, then to somebody who wanted to kill people who he hated are insulting, untrue, and way over the line. I'm not even going to waste my energy on that utter nonsense.

3. As I explained in point 1, I'm not talking about, nor have I ever been talking about teaching or exercising intolerance through my parental authority, I teach the exact opposite to my children, as do most Christians I know. I have advocated for equal legal rights for homosexual couples through Civil Unions (as I believe they are entitled to that since they are no different than you and me), as well as, on multiple occasions expressed my tolerance and acceptance of people with differing views than mine (including you), you are technically the only person in this specific discussion that has actually shown actions that meet the definition of Bigotry as defined in point 1. I'm not going to call you a bigot, because I would hope these actions are more due to an excess of passion and emotion rather than a deeply held bigoted worldview. I would prefer to assume the best about you as a person, I had hoped you would show that you could behave in a reasonable manner in a debate.

4. Your patronizing tone is very detrimental to your arguments. Of course I know what the term lemming refers to, it insinuates foolishness and stupidity to the point of following another off a proverbial cliff, so you are blatently called me a 'stupid fool' by the definition of the term. That's why I took offense to it. Also, I use the term 'opinion' to express humility in this case, suggesting that, though I may have arrived at a conclusion using logic, the conclusion is still my opinion (regardless of how many logical arguments I can make for it). This is because I know there is still room for me to grow and learn on every subject. I also use the word 'opinion' in a debate to show that, though I may believe something, I'm not going to hold it in such high regard as to say your opinions are wothless or not worth debating, as this would quickly destroy any chance for a good, reasonable debate. I still maintain that the majority of your attacks were both over the line and took a very derogatory tone towards those you disagree with. I also still maintain that you quickly use the term Bigot in an overly broad way, extending "stubborn and complete intolerance" to somehow mean "any form of disagreement or opposing belief".

EDIT: You also (incorrectly) state I didn't use any logic, though I did. I'll state my argument again. Teaching a child to not do a specific action does not automatically make them bigoted towards those who do that action, nor does it mean I will be bigoted towards them if they do that action, ESPECIALLY if that child is taught to respect others regardless of any other factors (as you don't have the whole picture on the entire parenting methods an indivudual will use, you do not have enough evidence to drop the word Bigot). Teaching a child "You shouldn't do action X for Y reason" while also teaching "You are no better than anybody, you should treat everybody with equal love and respect in the same manner you would want to be treated" is not the same as saying "You shouldn't do action X and people who do action X are bad, beneath us, we're better than them, etc." You are using a slippery slope argument to say that, if I teach my child not to do action X, I must therefore be intolerant of them if they in the end choose action X, and must also be teaching them to hate or be intolerant of those who do action X. The last two parts of that slippery slope argument were added in your mind and never stated by me or any of the other people you attacked, they are also untrue in my case.

Also, I notice that you have called me both a Lemming and Lazy. A lemming (mindless, stupid follower of others) for reading and copying a previously stated argument, Lazy for not reading the previously posted argument so as to know I shouldn't re-use it. So which is it... Lemming (requires that I read the previous argument) or Lazy (requires that I not have read the previous argument). I guess, since your logic is clearly the absolute truth, I won't suggest that in spite of the fact that I had read earlier posts, I used an argument I already had in my own mind before this discussion (which would be neither lemming or lazy), but that would require that your logical process have even the remote possibility of having any flaw, so I will not suggest that. :/

To respond directly to one of your points, when you said: "if you come on here saying, "I guarantee my kids wont be having sex outside of marriage", then yes, that is bigotry too, because it displays a degree of intolerance in your position of authority."

The above does not directly show bigotry, as it depends on the intentions of the parent and what the parent would do if they were proven wrong in their statement. If I were to say the statement above, it would more likely be over confidence that my parenting skills and a fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of a children as they grow into adulthood more than anything else. Someone who makes a statement like that is more than likely naive on the subject and overly confident, but that statement is not bigotry in and of itself because there are too many unknowns. The person who made the similar statment to the above also said he treats everyone with respect and dignity, so it is logical to assume he would also treat his children with respect and dignity and teach them to do the same. This is why I found that particular statement to be naive, but not enough to automatically jump to calling him a Bigot. To put it in different terms, if the statement has other explainations or reasons outside of bigotry (over confidence, naivete, etc.), you cannot with certainty say it is bigotry or that the individual is a bigot since you do not know enough about the indivudual to know his motives.

So where did you get that definition from? Anywhere official? My definition was from Merriam-Webster. Please cite your source of the definition of bigotry that you have stated. Once again, this is an argument about the definition of the word, so I'm hoping you didn't just make up your own definition on the spot, which is likely to have been created as a result of perceived use of the word, and not the actual definition in itself. 

So you're going to tech them tha tbeing gay is wrong, while at the same time teaching to treat everyone equal? That generally makes for quite a few confused children, so my question is, why even bother with the first one, ESPECIALLY since you've said that if they decide to do it anyway, you'll accept it. All you'd be doing is giving your children a sense of superiority over others they deem as "wrongdoers", and if you think that they'd choose being equal over having an upper hand over someone, then you obviously don't know children too well. Keeep in mind that a lot of Christian rich people didn't get to their position by doing the RIGHT thing. Teaching to be selfless while at the same time giving ammunition to use in acts of bigotry is a contradiction in itself. Bigotry only breeds bigotry. Any determination to teach their kid that a group of people are wrong or sinners is bigotry. It's doesn't have to be determination in upholding it as it does in determination to TEACH it.

Did I make ANY direct comparison to Hitler? My point was that EVERYONE has morals and beliefs, but that doesn't automatically make them right. You might THINK you're going the right way about teaching children that homosexuality is wrong, when in essence all you're doing is pushing him into a future of bigotry and intolerance. Why would you wish that kind of future on your kids? 

I suggest that you don't so searching too hard for insults that aren't there. Besides, you're assuming logic. For instance, to say that being a Lemming because you read the post implies that Lemmings have intricate knowledge of what the leader is doing. This is false. You can look up that many animals can die as a result of a stampede towards a cliff. It's not knowledge of WHY they're running or the intentions of the initial cause, it's individual instinct to run given the environment (in that case, many others running around them). Therefore, to say that being a Lemming and lazy can not happen is false. In fact, being Lazy and not reading previous posts that have been answered CAN result in Lemming attitudes. There is no indirect implication here.

Once again, you're using your OWN built definition of bigotry. Please cite a reputable source of where you got this definition from. I'm going to bring up another example of this: interracal marriage. Would you teach your kids that this is wrong? Why/Why not? Would you believe that it would cause any kinds of conflict elsewhere as a direct result of such teachings?

For someone whose volunteered in sex clinics and mental health centers (CAMH in Canada), I'm againt homosexuality because it is a psychological disorder classified as "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" in the DSG III "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Also because it's a non-threating or violoent, and livable sexual disorder, if a cure were to ever become invented, it's the homosexuals choice to use it or not. So, if a cure comes up in 10 years, there is no reason why gay marriages should not be honored.

So Homosexuality, I'm against, it's a disorder, simple as that.

Please explain to me how homosexuality is a psychological disorder. A psychological disorder must be either 1.) prevent the person from functioning in society, 2.) cause the person discomfort, or 3.) cause the person to be dangerous to self or others. Homosexuality satisfies none of those criteria, so how exactly is it a disorder?

You could make the case that homosexuality is a psychological disorder because it's uncommon. Well, if that's your criteria of a disorder, then you must also classify left-handed people or monks as having a psychological disorder, merely because they are uncommon. By that token, are you 'against' left-handedness as well? Probably not. So what is it about homosexuals that you're against that you can't say the same about other uncommon people (like left-handed people, and monks)?

Not jumping on the bandwagon here, just playing devil's advocate.

If you consider the definition of a disorder: A medical condition involving a disturbance to the usual functioning of the mind or body.

Then consider that, the purely natural purpose of the sexual functions of the human body (outside of pleasure and personal enjoyment) are for reproduction, and natural reproduction is impossible in homosexual activity. This could technically classify it as a disorder by the strict definition of the word.

Yeah but then just about everything weird is a disorder as well as some things that are common and accepted.  Blowjobs have no procreational purpose so anyone who likes oral would have a disorder.  

Not jumping on the bandwagon here, just playing devil's advocate.

If you consider the definition of a disorder: A medical condition involving a disturbance to the usual functioning of the mind or body.

Then consider that, the purely natural purpose of the sexual functions of the human body (outside of pleasure and personal enjoyment) are for reproduction, and natural reproduction is impossible in homosexual activity. This could technically classify it as a disorder by the strict definition of the word.

By that definition, anyone who chooses to live a life of abstinence (e.g many monks) suffers from a psychological disorder. When you define it that way, disorders aren't that bad.