PLEASE ALSO READ THROUGH MY COMMENTS SECTION.

A FACT that most people don't know about...

Homosexual activists used bullying and coercion tactics to take over the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973. They started getting access by infiltrating conventions and ended by getting psychiatrist's licenses pulled for offering reparative therapy. They bullied the APA into removing homosexuality from the DSMs list of disorders in 1973. Most mainstream scientific and medical orgs (like the American Association of Pediatrics, as just one example) when asked about issues dealing with homosexuality, simply models their policies, statements, and decisions from what the APA puts forth. How could the APA be a credible org or source at all on this issue when they let homosexual activists decide the issue for them by means of threats, bullying, and coercion, and completely devoid of anything scientifically objective? (Rhetorical) If anybody wants more details on this, feel free to message me.

Forget about me, I want to clear a couple things up, and that is the silliness of people carelessly and irresponsibly throwing around the words 'bigot' and 'homophobe' at others....

The words 'bigot' and 'bigotry' are two of the most overused and misused terms in current sociopolitical discourse. Properly speaking, a bigot is someone so suffused with a sense of their own rightness and righteousness, that they are intolerant of other people's freedom of expression. That, of course, is a perfect description of the attitudes and practices of much of the "progressive" liberal-left and the homosexualists within most of their discourse. Truth cannot be discredited or disproven, therefore the argument is reduced to attempts to discredit the source instead.

Even though they won't admit it, this occurs because they believe themselves to be both morally and intellectually superior, they have appropriated or framed the word by changing its usage to mean expressing, even just holding, different opinions to them. They are not merely invincibly self-righteous, but reflexively self-referential. In their subconscious minds,' bigotry' means thinking differently than them.

It is their tactical device throughout, continuously and repetitiously aimed at dissenters and other critics as "bigots." Their language is purposefully crude to enhance that idea. Most may not even realize it, but it's much like the "big lie" theory developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the Nazis, the constant repetition of this eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people.

The sick joke in all this is that they use flowery words like 'diversity, 'love,' 'equality,' and 'tolerance' to justify their own attempts to expunge the only form of diversity and tolerance that is actually worthwhile to them - i.e. diversity of ONLY their thoughts and beliefs - and without which all other forms of diversity are meaningless. It is a house of cards that will fall down some day. What will replace it remains to be seen.

The "homophobe = closet homosexual" claim is one of their oldest framing shame tactics in the book. This is a shame tactic that was spelled out by the homosexual activists in "After the Ball," a book which essentially is the leaders of the homosexual activists' 'manifesto,' which outlines their strategies of shame and propaganda tactics in order to push their agenda. These tactics were perpetuated and handed down to their community through media and word of mouth. It follows the same Marxist/Saul Alinsky ideology. As you can see they use this particular tactic reflexively now like programmed robots with one collective brainwashed mindset.

This particular book (After the Ball) was published in 1989. Not too long after it was published, is when homosexual activism propelled into this overly-aggressive and vehement " media/academia infiltrate to indoctrinate" juggernaut we see today.

The word "homophobe"...it is an extremely hypocritical attempt to insult someone in this fashion...insinuating that someone has "latent homosexual tendencies" is on par with calling someone a "fag." If one believes homosexuality is a good thing, then why would they use it to insult ? Most people (both religious and non-religious) advocate kindness towards homosexuals, despite the fact that they disagree with homosexuality in principle.

Again, this comes down to framing...the term 'homophobia' is a social construct invented by homosexual activists and is often being used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological, or medical grounds. Technically the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia — or irrational fear — of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.' It is as ridiculous as thinking pro-lifers secretly urge to kill babies, or thinking firefighters secretly urge to burn people or commit arson, or thinking animal rights advocates secretly urge to beat up and abuse their pets behind closed doors when they get home.

The terms ''homophobia'' and ''homophobic'' have been tactically used by homosexual activists and their sympathizers to blur the difference between those who actively fear and loathe homosexuals, and those who merely disapprove of homosexuality. The re-framing of the meaning and the blurring is deliberate, done in order to shame the latter into abandoning their disapproval. Tactics like these are used when truth cannot be used to validate their behaviors. So don't fall for it...stay true to your principled values and beliefs.