Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot.

Rebuttals: "However, if you want to use "everyone", you must include; infants, toddlers, kids, teenagers, and young adults. You must also include; nuns, Buddhist monks, and even the pope. "This is completely true. I will now refute all of those examples. 1. Infants have strong and unfair dislike of many people. They will discriminate based on a variety of factors far too vast to completely list, but not limited to size, facial hair, and ethnicity. Infants will try to avoid these people and cry for help if they encounter these people. 2. Toddlers retain their same dislikes from infantry. They're still too young to be properly educated to avoid bigotry. 3. As they continue to age, the kids can take a variety of paths, either having their infant bigotry trained out of them by parents or guardians, having it strengthened if they are taught to dislike a certain class, or retaining their infant style bigotry if it is not addressed. The children who lose their infant style bigotry become bigots in regards to the people who have not. 4. The changes of childhood are simply magnified as teenagers. 5. Young adults gain the ability to train themselves to avoid bigotry, but this brings about the same problems as when they are trained in childhood. 6. Nuns are bigots in regards to just about everything that opposes their interpretation of their religion. 7. Buddhist monks are people, just like everyone else. A perfect Buddhist monk would not be a bigot, but the perfect Buddhist monk does not exist. They've all been infants, and are faced with the same issues when they are trying to re educate themselves as everyone else. 8. Popes are similar to monks; the religion they have chosen recommends avoiding bigotry, but it is impossible to adequately re teach oneself without attaining new knowledge that it is possible to make yourself not a bigot, but then because you have this knowledge, being unfairly biased against people who can't be bothered to try to change themselves. "The burden is on you to actually prove that everyone is already a bigot. "I have to disagree with this. The burden of proof is on you to prove that not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot. That statement requires one example, unlike mine, which requires a bio of every single person who ever lived. Naturally, the BOP rests on the simpler case. Regardless, the assumption that just because proof hasn't been presented for my case actually validates yours is a burden of proof fallacy. "I hate criminals, but it is justified. " I do not claim that all strong dislike is unjustified, just that everyone has at least one dislike that is unjust. "There are people who can justify their disagreement. "It is true that some disliking is justifiable, but there is no practical limit to the number of things a person can dislike. "What about forgiveness. It's not only a religious term, if people have the ability to forgive, they have the ability to not be a bigot. "For forgiveness to be a factor, there has to be an action by the opposing party that is to be forgiven. If there is an action that would qualify to be forgiven, it is clearly one of malice against the forgiver, therefore removing their status of bigotry in regards to the opposing party because they do not meet the 'unfair' constraint of bigotry, as they have been wronged by the opposing party. Therefore, forgiveness has no application to our definition of bigotry. Conclusion: I have refuted all of Pro's examples of non-bigots, and clarified why forgiveness is irrelevant to our agreed definition of bigotry.