Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sun Soldier; All
Going back to what started the whole lawsuit, literally, it was a lack of tolerance to an imposition.

The deception and the clever misuse of words and wording is what I placed the emphasis on.

"Tolerance" and/or to "tolerate" lays on the onus on those who do not believe that homosexuality is a normality. In other words, it implies that we are the ones at fault is we refuse to accept homosexuality as a normality.

An "imposition" on the other hand, or to "impose" their beliefs on society lays the burden on those who do the imposing. In other words, "to bring about by force" because we are an unwilling party to an agenda to have a deviancy recognized and accepted as a normality.

It is a clever and cunning misuse of the wording meant to further the homosexual agenda. To make homosexuals the victims in this case.

A few years back, homosexuals asked to be left alone. Fine then. Do what you want to do in the privacy of your own home. No one cares and no one wants to know.

How far will we allow society to take this? If someone wants to sit in their own house and drink their own urine and eat their own poop I could care less. If someone wants to do it in front of you or do it at the office cafeteria would you object? Don't they have a right to do it? If you object does that mean you are intolerant? Maybe you have a "poopaphobia"?

The other example I gave was the intentional misuse of the word and term "phobia" to imply that the problem lies with those opposed for whatever reasons to homosexuality.

I don't and I don't know anyone who truly suffers from "homophobia" - and yet this word is commonly used to describe anyone who may be opposed to homosexuality for whatever the reason may be. The implication because of the wording implies that anyone opposed to homosexuality then suffers from a psychosis or irrational fear.

There are those who practice many deviant sexual practices and they need to be accepted and recognized as a deviancy.

There are those who have sex with animals and I like many others find it disgusting and perverted. I am unwilling to accept it as a normality so does that make me intolerant? Does it make me a "beastaphobe".

I am surely not "afraid" of someone screwing the pooch. Nor do I fear two butt pirates who have an overwhelming desire to impale each other in the unholiest of holes

If I am unwilling to accept these things as a normality, that is my right and the case is closed. If homosexuals or their supporters continue to try to force my acceptance of their behaviour as a normality on either myself or society through whatever means then it becomes an clearly an imposition.

163 posted on 11/28/2004 8:48:32 AM PST by expatguy (Fallujah Delenda Est!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]


To: expatguy

"If I am unwilling to accept these things as a normality, that is my right and the case is closed."

Yes, it is definately your right. You're also correct that gays are not normal. Their existance however, is normal. The case will never be closed because they do exist. Alot of people will never accept them but they will continue to emerge from the closet. I don't see any way to put them back in it so I tolerate their existance.


269 posted on 11/29/2004 1:47:15 AM PST by Sun Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson