SDFL has a point. "Bigot" is a bit of a cheap shot. Like most other epithets, it hurts, and most times it angers or offends as to end discussion or draw it off-topic.

I happen to agree with your use of the word. Opposition to LGBT rights is bigotry and many who do have such unsophisticated justifications as to be fairly called bigots. But for the purposes of fruitful, civil discussion, it's good to avoid the word or to only use it carefully.

And yeah; lately, SDFL had been short and impatient with liberals and atheists. But I don't think his initial comment was one of those times. The purpose of it didn't seem to be as a knock of any particular one of us or attack any of our ideas. He mainly wanted to share his gut reaction to the pro-marriage equality billboard.

@GodlessLiberal - That may be true, but it's more helpful to type that assessment in words rather than wrapping all of that in the single word, bigot. (But you have a point. There comes a point where an individual isn't due the effort of an explaination and we should just come out and say how we feel.)

"Like I said, he seems to be trying to be the new Curtis."

Ha! His choice adjatives in the reply comment was eeriely Curtinian (hateful being amongst them). Yeah, he sure comes off LoBorn-like, but I feel better knowing there is a brain and unarticulated reasons behind his curmudgeon

It's one of those words that have been thrown around so much that their meanings have been lost to many people. Outside the inflammatory arena,  the word "artisan" as an example. "Authentic" is another one. We don't usually look up words before we use them, so we sometimes use them improperly.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-46aA4Yarepc/TV7EhLxOJ1I/AAAAAAAAEEI/kZYQTJjbYfI/s1600/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg

You're not a bigot.

Suckerfucktardcuntforlife is the very definition of one. So, calling his attacks on you monumentally ironic, blind, and hypocritical would be the understatement of the ages.

Not at all. If you were a bigot you'd be fighting just as hard to stomp all over the rights of the LGBT community as some of the more vocal 'anti-everything not christian' crowd here on xanga. Have you harmed anyone who is different from you? Tried to manipulate the law to reflect your own beliefs? Have you tried to set your own set of beliefs above others for special treatment because you believe they are 'the one truth'?

No?

Then nope. Not a bigot.

You're the last person I would ever think of as a bigot.  

My standard: If I read your words on purpose, you're not a bigot; If I block you from my blog, you are a bigot.You're not a bigot by my standards.

My standards may be bigoted.

A bigot? Fuck no, which is why I like reading what you have to write. I think you just encountered a brick wall of douche.

"Well, I like to follow the mantra "Love the believer, hate the belief." " = I am going to have to remember that one to share with my friend. It is funny because it is true. And well, as a Christian, I find it funny.

I do not think you are a bigot, in fact, the guy calling you one might be one himself (I cant tell for sure form his comments, but he might be borderline). I really liked your graphic in reply to point number 2. I keep trying to tell some of my very conservative Christians that if we dont advocate freedom for all, even those who believe differently from us, we risk losing our own freedom. I mean, times change, and soon white people will be a minority in a place that opressed others and called them illegal immigrants and such. the one true thing about hisotry is no one had power forever, and if we are not careful the tables could turn and then it will be our beliefs being disrespected. then I will say, I TOLD YOU SO to all of them, who though legislating Christian beliefs was always good.

Hey now! ... You're a rock star. :P 

Look, everyone is a bit of a bigot in one way or another. 

But, you can tell whoever they flaming person was (I believe another Loborn) that I am a born again Christian, and a pastor's kid and you and I get along great. ^_^ 

There's no need for "words"- ya know? Discussion = great. Flaming attitudes are just... well...flaming ;) 

Like most right-wing, whack job arguments SDFL makes, they fall apart pretty quickly if you start by assessing whether or not he uses his own words correctly. 

SDFL claims you are a "bigot." Meriam-Webster's Dictionary defines a bigot 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." 

One of the key aspects of that definition, to me, is "intolerantly." What differentiates people like SDFL a bigot (and the anti-gay crowd generally) and you (and atheists/evolutionists generally) is that you can't reasonably be labeled intolerant, or at least the same kind of intolerant as people like SDFL. We see right-wing Christians attempting to remove dissenting thought or practices all the time in the courts, media, etc. For example, gay marriage. Many conservative Christians abhor homosexuality, so they actively engage in campaigns to stigmatize it, punish it, or make homosexuals an unequal class in the law. That's meaningful intolerance; the type of intolerance clearly within the spirit of "bigot. 

What is not "bigoted" is a rational, measured disapproval of a belief system that is subject to change upon receipt of convincing information. Whereas conservative revulsion and hatred of homosexuality is entirely irrational, atheist disagreement with particular aspects of Christianity are (for the large part) rational. When is the last time you saw atheist organizations attempting to deny Christians fundamental rights practiced by other classes of people? I honestly know 0 atheists who would, say, advocate denying Christians the right to marry, the right to adopt, etc. It simply doesn't happen with nearly the same frequency because right-wing Christians are much less tolerant and much more bigoted than most atheists. One group (people like SDFL) engage in meaningful intolerance; the other (atheists) engage in, at most, nominal intolerance that is merely the result of philosophical disagreement. 

Of course,  you are also not "obstinately" intolerant, which is another necessary element of the definition of "bigot." You are open to debate on these issues and admit when you are wrong. You don't agree with people like SDFL because they are wrong or incapable of putting forth compelling arguments. They, on the other hand, consistently lose and have argument disproved, but continue believing the same tired crap. They are obstinate. You are not. They are bigots. You are not. 
So not only is SDFL wrong, he's also illiterate (minority definition meaning ignorant about meaning of words). He's both a wrong idiot and a bigot. Pretty obvious stuff to someone who (1) isn't crazy and (2) speaks the English language with a high schooler's proficiency.