[matthewmacleod]

Nowadays it is difficult to say that certain consensual sexual practices are morally wrong without being condemned as a bigot.

That's probably good, because I'm finding it difficult to think of any consensual sexual practices that could feasibly be defined as "morally wrong" without the accuser being fairly described as a "bigot". I'd be interested to hear examples though.

[slothtrop]

Here's one: partaking in a pedo or Lolita fantasy. Doesn't sit right with most people, though that on its own doesn't make it immoral. One could argue that exploration of, say, violent or depraved acts as mere fantasy is apologist, increases risk of partakers trying to up the ante with non-consensual participants to get their rocks off, and is plainly psychologically unhealthy. Fantasizing about what is deemed "evil" is not immoral (we all have fantasized about inflicting violence) but what of habitually doing so to the point where it transforms us? May it be socially considered immoral to genuinely want to commit ill-will even if it isn't performed? Obviously actions are the only "actionable" thing as far as repercussions go, but our thinking changes us perpetually: it is in a sense an action, to choose ourselves. I believe we can choose to be exceptionally deviant, and can choose otherwise, and that the former could have negative consequences both for the self and society. In some capacity, this touches morality...

[poster123]

According to many religions, there are many kinds of consensual sex that are morally wrong. Is every person who believes in the teachings of such a religion a bigot?

[Spivak]

Keep in mind that, outside of some contrived examples, beliefs themselves are rarely bigoted -- it's the reason why that belief is held that makes the determination.

For example, a coworker of mine is extremely against illegal immigration. Most people that don't know them assume that this belief stems from a hatred toward immigrants from certain 'undesirable' countries. But once you get to know them it turns out that it actually stems from a belief that the law should always be followed to a t -- they don't actually care one way or another about the issue itself, if the law said we had open borders then it would be no problem.

But we sort of run into a problem when people proxy their beliefs -- for my coworker it's the law, and for the religious it's their doctrine. Are people who subscribe to a belief system responsible for any or all of the intolerance that underpins it? Do people have a moral responsibility to audit their beliefs systems and look for intolerance? Do people have a moral responsibility to not follow an unjust law? Where you fall on these questions probably determines the answer to your question.

[virmundi]

Here's an interesting thing I've seen from people making such claims. Yes they are bigots even if they say, "What you're doing is wrong, but I'll let you be (aside from denouncing the behavior)". This is actually not really bigoted by the definition "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." That's were this discourse is. If someone doesn't AGREE, they are bigots. Hell, tolerance just means putting up with their view. You can tolerate and still try to teach another path. Unfortunately for many on the Left, disagreeing and arguing against without seeking any force of law is the same as being a bigot.