the difference, NBC, is that i have facts and ethics on my side, and those i've called "raving lunatics" do not.
by any reasonable logical standards, it is raving lunacy to think the earth is 6,000 years old.
by any reasonable logical standards, bigotry against homosexuals is raving lunacy.
by any resonable logical standards, bigotry against atheists is raving lunacy.
the suggestion that you've inferred (purposefully construed?) that i think it is homophobic of you to "disagree" with my positions would have to be spelled out for it to have any merit ... however, it does seem to me that anti-homosexual positions are, by definition, homophobic since science and reality don't lend any merit to derogatory views and opinions of homosexuals, certainly in the same way that science and reality don't support derogatory views of different races. opposition to gay marriage (to choose one example) is made of the same logical blueprint as opposition to school intergration or anit-miscegenation laws.
if you'd like to construe an argument arguing to re-segregate the public school system, by all means, go ahead and do so.
but don't expect "respect" for an argument that uses bigotry as it's core argument.