Yeah, exactly. It's a little semantics trick they use to make disagreeing with them virtually impossible. You got hypocrites for everything. You got politicians that want to lock people up for stealing but are stealing from the public. You got women that call other women hoes but they are hoing it up just as much... but you don't ever hear anyone that speaks out against stealing to automatically be assumed as what they speak out against. You don't like people slanging drugs in your community? You must secretly be dealing crack!
With the homosexual agenda, they willfully focus on the hypocrites and try to paint everybody that disagrees with that lifestyle in some sort of negative connotation. Either you are 'afraid of homosexuals' aka a homophobe or you are on the downlow. I know exactly where you coming from with the self-insult angle. A lot of homosexuals and their backers talk about they are down with that cause, but their way to insult you is to insinuate you are what they are supporting. That's like some white dude saying, "It's really unfair that we have so much racism against blacks. Racists are so ignorant. If you don't agree with what I just said, you must secretly be black."
I don't like any of the political parties, but one thing I notice about a lot of liberals is that they love to try to box people's opinions in with little labels and name-calling. If you don't agree with this guy's opinion on race, you must be a bigot or racist. Oh if you don't find homosexuality acceptable, you must be a homo on the low or a homophobe. If you don't cosign all of the nonsense that is starting to come from feminism, you are a bigot or sexist.
Another thing a lot of these cats do is try to rearrange reality. Apparently doing things that are close to gay is 'being comfortable in your sexuality.' But avoiding it must mean you are insecure and probably gay on the sneak. Guys sitting around talking about they watched brokeback mountain and even sat through the sex scenes because they are so secure in their sexuality, but if you ain't down to watch and support those sorts of movies, you might be a homo on the sneak because you ain't secure enough in your sexuality to watch two men hugged up. Negroes out here wearing tiger print leggings because 'they are secure in their sexuality.' If you don't dig that, you secretly gay. Cats out here looking at other men talking about 'he so handsome. I'm secure in my sexuality enough to say that." But if you on some, "Man, I ain't into dudes so don't ask me to comment on their looks," then you insecure and secretly gay.
It's easily possible for people to have diverging opinions on a matter. Some people are cool with homosexuality, and others are not. That's just two people having different opinions. You don't got to accept the perpetuation of homosexuality to be straight. That's utter nonsense. If that's the case, the majority of Jamaica is gay. The majority of African nations is gay. 2pac is gay, Wutang is gay. Just about all muslims must be gay. Just about everybody's parents and grandparents must be gay too, because they weren't playing that back in the day. This tactic falls short when exposed to reality. What really happens is these guys take a few cases of homo hypocrites, aka figures who were really gay but spoke out against it, make them the face of dissenters and insinuate that everyone who doesn't cosign homosexuality is like those hypocrites. Ain't nobody falling for that name-calling okey doke.
