Let's see. A person's religion is also not genetic. People, at least to some degree, choose their faith.
So, are you a bigot if you say "It is wrong to be Christian, and is contrary to nature"?
Interesting point.
If there is no god, no soul, no spirit, nothing beyond the purely physical, then Man's evident predisposition to religion would more or less have to be genetic, no?
But then, in the absence of any kind of "celestial" moral authority, bigotry becomes a false concept, as it implies that there is some kind of "wrongness" with the thinking that leads to the attitudes. If we are the product of our genes, then declaring something as "wrong" or "offensive" is nothing more than an attempt to control by nullification, an effort to ensure one's own survival at the expense of someone else's. At which point, right and wrong become nothing more than subjective constructs.
It seems to me that "bigotry" implies moral authority which, frankly, genes do not have.
Accepting that bigotry exists, implies accepting that a moral authority exists. Accepting the existence of a moral authority carries with it the acceptance that there is more to Man than a purely physical manifestation.
Knocking over a few more dominoes, we come to
"what is the moral purpose of sex?"That question doesn't have any meaning unless morality does, and that doesn't have any meaning unles there's more than "Man = dust" at work.
And we're back to
"what purpose is served by trying to lay off a personal choice on an arrangement of genes?"Well, that would be seeking to avoid responsibility for a moral choice, would it not?
It's an interesting concept, to assert that there's such a thing as morality, but that certain imperatives can be excused by errors on the part of the moral authority source. Kind of a
"yes, we have morality, so we'll allow that God can exist, but he makes mistakes and we get these mucked up genes, so we're not responsible for not following moral mandates."Or, alternatively, there is no god, and nothing we do is our fault, since it's all in the genetic programming, which is entirely an accident of nature. So, really, there is no such thing as morality, but my survival depends on controlling you, so I'm imposing the concept on you to ensure that you limit your own choices.
So, back to your question.
So, are you a bigot if you say "It is wrong to be Christian, and is contrary to nature"?
If there's no moral authority, then of course not.
If there
IS a moral authority, then "nature" derives from the same source. So, such a declaration *might* be bigotry. Or it might simply be meaningless.
Depending on who or what the "moral authority" is.
In general, though, it's morally wrong to use morality to control others in ways that compromise their survival.
Excuse me while I try to extract my tongue from my cheek.