Minority Rights Advocate

Fighting for the smallest minority: The Individual

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 25 other followers

  • Topics

  • Advertisements

Acceptance Vs. Tolerance. Tolerance IS Acceptable, but Forced Acceptance is tyranny, and is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Posted by mrfixit on December 22, 2010

Can you be FORCED to accept another person and their activities and beliefs?  Can you be forced to ACCEPT the worldview or religions of others?

Well some want EXACTLY that!

I say we can and should TOLERATE the beliefs of others we don’t accept.  We should limit the use of force to only matters where the INDIVIDUAL unalienable rights of one person are infringed upon by another person.

The rights of one person should never infringe upon the rights of another, if and when they do, it is not a “right” it is a privilege and must be granted out of free will on those providing the service or benefit.

So, if we get to the point where any minority GROUP of people can impose upon us a forced ACCEPTANCE, what do we have?

Well, for one:  tyranny, and for another if it is a belief system that we are told to accept, like say Gay Marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage, then it is to FORCE acceptance, same as forcing a RELIGION upon us, and is a clear violation of the first amendment.  It imposes a belief system upon others by using the FORCE of law and government.  Religion is a set of beliefs, those that view their sexuality as the core of their existence have in essence formed that as their religion.

Marriage should be the realm of religious institutions, and it can be recognized legally binding as sharing of assets by the married couple.  I can care less if the couple has the same LEGAL status under law via a contract, but it is NOT marriage by definition if it is not a heterosexual couple involved.  I could add that the whole attempt to say there is equality of homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships is also a lie, by definition they are DIFFERENT, not equal.  I don’t care if the LAW treats them as equal, but the attempt to change the DEFINITION of a word is not acceptable, since this is how you force acceptance.

So, what we have are Gay “rights” activists that don’t seek mere tolerance, which I and the vast majority of people would not object with, they seek acceptance by force, using the power of government.  In this article it SAYS IT (in reference to DADT, which for all its flaws was largely an effort at tolerance):

“for gay rights campaigners a notorious roadblock on the way to full acceptance.”


So, the effort behind repeal of DADT and Open Gay service is not about tolerance, it is not about equality, it is not about national security, it is about FORCED Acceptance, and the erosion of the US military’s fighting effectiveness.

That so many are ignorant, and even some very highly placed leaders, that is very troubling, but that is what we have.

Note also in this AP article, it pushed a specific pro-gay bias when it says:

“Its repeal comes as the American public has become more tolerant on such issues as gay marriage and gay rights in general.”

Well, IF that were true, then why did one of the most liberal states, California TWICE vote in majority to BAN Gay marriage?  The same has been the case before voters in every state that has made it a ballot issue.  The only place where there has been a push for this is amongst the elitist lawyers and activist judges, the people are resisting the efforts of FORCED acceptance!  They want you to feel alone and isolated, but he facts show it is THEM who are a minority, and it is them imposing their views upon others, they are the tyrants, the American people are very tolerant, but they don’t go along with FORCED acceptance!

(12/22/2010) Try to find the actual bill signed by Obama that enacts the POLICY Repeal, I gave up, it is elusive at best, or it is not available, WHY?

I may have found it at the Gay website, but it is from last May, not sure if this is the text that passed, but likely similar.  Politicians are lazy:


Note, this says the language does not demand a repeal, it must meet conditions, conditions that can’t be met if TRUTH is out.  It would take a major effort at deception to pull this off, but that is possible we somehow ended up with Obama, so major deception these days IS a real possibility…

Previous posts:

On Repeal of DADT:


On tolerance and acceptance:



6 Responses to “Acceptance Vs. Tolerance. Tolerance IS Acceptable, but Forced Acceptance is tyranny, and is NOT ACCEPTABLE.”

  1. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/acceptance-vs-tolerance-tolerance-is-acceptab… […]

  2. […] is exactly what they want! Staffer for Presidents Reagan and Bush found dead in Delaware landfillAcceptance Vs. Tolerance. Tolerance IS Acceptable, but Forced Acceptance is tyranny, and is NOT ACCE… « Far Left Whacko Rep. Kucinich sues over “injury” from an olive pit in […]

  3. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/acceptance-vs-tolerance-tolerance-is-acceptab… […]

  4. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/acceptance-vs-tolerance-tolerance-is-acceptab… […]

  5. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/acceptance-vs-tolerance-tolerance-is-acceptab… […]

  6. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/acceptance-vs-tolerance-tolerance-is-acceptab… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: