From the demand for "tolerance" to the demand for full participation; how we got to where we are

Recently I was essentially attacked on one of the forums here for experessing my personal opinion and position. I explained that while I disagreed with someone's lifestyle choices and considered them to be destructive, I would not interfere with that person's rights as a human being. Not surprisingly, that was not good enough. Because I did not express tacit approval of that particualr lifesytle choice, I was called judgmental, intolerant, hateful and a slew of other things. This interaction set me to thiking.

We've come to a point in western culture (at least in the US and UK) where certain socio-political elements are aggressively pushing the normalization and mainstream acceptance of behaviours and even psychological abberations that were, in the past, consdidered to be marginal in some cases, criminal in others. How did we get here? Well, I've pondered this and in the light of my recent experience, I think I have a pretty good grasp on that answer. It's been accomplished through a step-by-step process that was well thought out and relentlessly marched through. But its foundations were set long ago.

A society, to have any cohesion, has to decide what it considers normal and acceptable. That will vary from culture to culture. There are cultures in the mid- and far-east where pederasty is considered acceptable, where men pay money for young boys to dress up like girls, dance provactively and engage in sexual acts. (You can do your own research if you care to. Proponents often refer to it as "Greek-love pederasty.") Other cultures reject such behaviour and consider other non-traditional relationships between certain sexes and age groups to be abberant. There are reasons for this that go beyond simple moalistic or relgious convictions, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Here, I'll start from certain presumptions and then stick to the question of how we came to the point where behaviours and relationships previously considered abberant are now being agressively pushed to the mainstream.

As a first step, traditional morality was questioned and pushed out of the way. The idea of committed love between a man and a woman, joined together in life-long covenant to build a family which in turn would be the most foundational compoenent of a strong society and culture, was pushed to edges of what was considered normal and right. So-called "free love" became the cry of those who claimed to be newly liberated and the old ways were mocked. Divorce became more and more common. Children born out of wedlock became more acceptable and in some segments of society is now more the norm than otherwise. The negative results of this are obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Now, over 40% of children born in the US are born to unmarried women. In black america, that figure was 25%; now it's about 70%.

Once this basic building block of a healthy society was erroed, the next step was to push the moral boundaries further back, the goal being to eventually eliminate them altogether. How to do that?

There has been an ongoing process, a program if you will, to get us to the point where large segments of the culture are going as far as to call for the normalization of such abberations as pedophilia, gender dysphoria and unhealthy lifestyles. The process went like this:

TOLERANCE->ACCEPTANCE->APPROVAL->AFFIRMATION->PARTICIPATION

First, we were told that we needed to be "more tolerant." One of the dictonary definitions for tolerance is "leeway for variation from a standard." This was, obstensibly, all they were asking. "Tolerate us. Let us be what we are and don't buck it. We only want our place in soiety." This was actually already practiced to an extent, but now it had to be universal. People, being the nice kind of folk that they generally are, tolerated. "Tolernce became a buzzword, but eventually that just wasn't enough.

Eventually, the second step was demanded; acceptance. It was not enough to simply tolerate the behaviours, to give leeway for deviation from what had long been considered a social standard. Now, the deivation had to be accepted; that is, embraced by the mainstream as good and normal. It had to be acknowledged as the right way to do things. Acceptance meant that we all had to include what had beforehand been considered fringe and abnormal as part of our societal structure. Homosexual marriage had to be accepted by everyone because ... love.

Next, approval was demanded. It was no longer enough to look on it and say, "OK, it can exist alongside what society has always considered normal." It became necessary to say, "It is good." Note how now, we're all supposed to say that being grossly obese is a good thing. We must approve of it as a healthy, normal and good lifestyle choice. Fat people who dress in skimpy clothing are role models. Men who parade around in dresses are heros.

After approval came the demands for affirmation. We are now required by those who practice these behaviours to individually come alongside and pat them on the back, tell them that they are good people, genuine people for being real and honest. Whether it's because they want to achive the physically impossible goal of changing their sex, or if they want to live as morbidly obese people and pretned that they are healty, or if grown men want to dress and live as little girls, or if "minor attracted persons (i.e., sick perverts) want to rape babies, we are all expected to affirm their lifestyle and mental illnesses. We must all affirm.

The final stage is demanded participation. There comes a point where everyone is required to participate in the charade. This is already happening in some areas.

I am expected to call a man who was born with testicles a woman. "IT'S MA'AM! I must participate!

Have you not seen the people who claim that a heterosexal man who refuses to date what they call a "transgender woman" (i.e., a man who pretends to be a woman) is "transphobic?" Thats right! It's not enough that you tolerate them. It's not enough that you accept or even approve of them. It's even not enough that you affirm their choices and call him a "her". Now, you must participate or you are "transphobic" and a bad person. You must join in the insanity. You, transgender men, must participate in courtship and sexual acts with men who call themselves women, or you are a horrible individual! Lack of female genitalia notwithstanding ...

It's not good enough that you pat morbidly obese (Oops, that's a bad word now!) peopole on the back and tell them that they look good, that you oo and ah over their bikinin magazine spreads. Now, if you intentionally lose weight, you are "fatphobic" and a bad person! If you are fat, you must stay fat, or you are part of the problem. (...cont'd...)
:

continuation of: incoserv

If a man decides he's a woman you must now join in on the delusion and participate, twisting reality to fit their own broken souls. You must call him her, or zer or whatever in hell they want you to call them. You know, pronouns.

This is how we came to the point of large socio-political movements (namely the LGB... community becoming a mouthpiece for the normalization of pedophilia) pushing agendas and behaviours that are even now considered abberative by a majority of the mainstream culture. Once you start to push back the boundaries, there is nowhere to stop. The problem is that a society without boundaries cannot long survive. (... cont'd)

There is verse in the book of Proverbs (22:28) that says:

Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your ancestors. (NIV)

There is a reason behind his sage bit of advice. Those ancient boundaries are set for a reason. Those "ancient" people saw things, experienced things. They set those bounadries for a reason. We move them to our own detriment.

(Note: I learned my lessons. Personal attacks will be ignored. They are not worth my time or attention. This is not an attack on poor li'l ol' you, it is an analysis of a socio-political phenomenon that is destorying western society. Intelligent discussion is welcomed and will be engaged. If you can prove me wrong, go ahead and do it. But calling me names or accusing me of being a bad person just shows the weakness of your position.)
:

And further helps to prove your point when they do "attack."
I have to say that I agree with what you're laying out here. I'm straight, so no, none of this makes any sense. I do not see how a man can "lay" with another man. The thought of it erks me to my soul. In my eyes it's "gross." BUT! I concur with I support people being themselves. If you were born a man but like to dress up in feminine clothing THATS YOUR CHOICE AND YOUR RIGHT. And I will back their right to do it. Doesn't mean I want to see it tho. I do not want it shoved down my throat anymore than they would want me talking about Jesus and Gods Word. I'm a practicing Christian, but that doesn't mean I need to shove it down your throat (even if I believe* it will save their soul!) Want to know why I don't try and cram my beliefs onto others??? It's called RESPECT. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. look it up. And as a Christian I don't have to like you to love you (accept you for who you are and want good things and happiness for everyone the same as I want those things for myself).
You can call me homophobic all you want. That's just your ignorance. I've had many gay and lesbian friends. I like or dislike people for their hearts/actions.
Ps. Your sexual proulise doesn't define you. You're more than gay, or lesbian just like I'm more than just straight.
Final note: if anyone is caught harming our children we will rack you up regardless of how you "identify." Just sayin.
One love
a reply to: incoserv

I don't partake in others delusions.

Don't like it, kick rocks.

originally posted by: Lysergic
I don't partake in others delusions.

Don't like it, kick rocks.

If enough of us do this, they will be pushed back to the margins where they belong.

a reply to: AOx6179

Well, respecting people and saying that their rights as a human should not be infringed upon is no longer sufficient.

But, yeah, I am with you.

That's as tolerant as it'll get with me. Not enough? Like dude said, then they can kick rocks.
a reply to: incoserv

And none of my first reply was directed at the author of this post. My response was to anyone who might get their feels hurt because someone doesn't agree with you.a reply to: incoserv

originally posted by: AOx6179
And none of my first reply was directed at the author of this post. My response was to anyone who might get their feels hurt because someone doesn't agree with you.a reply to: incoserv

I got that ...

They will be along eventally, parading their "lifestyle choices" before the world and expecting us all to be just impressed and in love with 'em.

It is as you have laid out, sadly.

This has been decades in the making, and I do think they
had a solid plan all along. Going back as far as I can see in
my lifetime I can follow it along with the culture wars,
the music, and Hollywood that went before and paved
the ground work. As they say, it is a slippery slope.

Once on the slope, it is all downhill.
For the rest of us, the road is long and filled
with trials and tribulations.

Stand strong, be blessed.

a reply to: incoserv

I enjoy your post, I share the same point of views as you when it comes to the degradation of our society and the targeting of children in the country, pedos wants to normalize their sickness.

And nobody will change my mind, I dare anybody call me whatever they want.

Keep bringing the post on the subject, because if you don't I will.

Great post BTW, love it, you are right on the spot,

Excellent post.

I see where you’re coming from and agree with you.

I say that not as some biggot/hater/jerk/etc. but rather from the “this is what it is” standpoint of observation.

I think you nailed what it is.

Everything got weird at the “approval” layer. Once things that were questionable became promoted - game over.

When I about the idea of “belonging” it contains the term acceptance. Most people just want to be accepted - not weird or standing out. They want to feel comfortable. To the “OP’s” point, that wasn’t good enough. But why? Acceptance doesn’t always mean a pat on the head like “it’s ok, we’ll accept you” but rather many acceptances are hard fought. In this case, acceptance was earned yet not enough.

Why?

I don’t know why. What I do know is it’s part of the painful process of getting the masses to the point of view the OP has taken which I summarize to be a “you do you, I’ll do me, it’s all good” stance, that can in fact live genuinely alongside perhaps not wanting to personally participate in or a preference for what another person is doing.

TRULY LGPTQ9+FJB) people want nothing more than to be able to live a peaceful life, have a good job, a home and family. They are not the squeaky wheels out demonstrating, demanding we fill elementary school libraries with how-to manuals on same gender sex and the right to medically and surgically castrate pre-pubescent grade schoolers.

Remember the outcry about the Muslim tradition of mutilating female genitalia? I do, and I don't see a big difference in the mutilation crazy, radical people claim as their right to do to their children. In some states, the schools can legally alter your child's physical body without your knowledge or permission.

a reply to: AOx6179

Want to know why I don't try and cram my beliefs onto others??? It's called RESPECT. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. look it up. And as a Christian I don't have to like you to love you (accept you for who you are and want good things and happiness for everyone the same as I want those things for myself).

This is worth repeating. This needs repeating.

Well said.

originally posted by: nugget1
TRULY LGPTQ9+FJB) people,,.

My comments of late have not been about people, but about the socio-political movement that identifies itself by the ever-evolving acronym soup that starts out LBGT...

The movement has been co-opted by sick people whose agenda it is to destroy society. Sadly, a lot of people who embrace a sexually involved identity encompassed in that letter soup don't get it and insist on supporting the movement, which means supporting (even if only implicitly) the sick perversions being championed by the movement.

There's Groupthink on both sides.

Trying to remain tolerant without bowing to the demands of both sides of the extreme end is difficult.

As a moderate conservative, I find it concerning.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
There's Groupthink on both sides.

Trying to remain tolerant without bowing to the demands of both sides of the extreme end is difficult.

As a moderate conservative, I find it concerning.

I don't find not bowing difficult at all. What I find difficult is people - mentally unbalanced nut jobs and perverts - demanding that I conform mhy world view to theirs.

a reply to: incoserv

I have a problem with bowing to the unnatural as well.

I deal with folks that feel that are being pushed to extremes by some ideologies and "perverts", but for the most part they are tolerant of folks who don't "fit the mold" in our locale because they aren't "perverts pushing themselves on others".

My stepdad used to say there's a difference between a homosexual and a "faggot".

A "faggot" won't take no for an answer.

(Sorry for the crude language to ilustrate my point, but I think you get my drift.)

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

It's not crude language. It's direct language. And sometimes direct language is the only way to get a point across.

I agree completely.

a reply to: incoserv

You have to understand, where I grew up it was a slur for anyone not fitting the "jock" stereotype.

I was called a dyke for wearing jeans in grade school, and my husband was called a faggot for being thin and artistic in his style. We are both profoundly heterosexual and always have been. His torment was so great he dropped out of high school because of it, whereas my experience was just one school in the fourth grade by one young man who tormented me.

So, even "direct language" can be abused and come off as crude behavior when not levied appropriately.