Pride and public perversion
Tolerance for someone's private life is very different from accepting public displays of deviance in front of children.
We have been told that "Pride Month" exists because homosexuals (and others on the LGBTQ+ spectrum) are a persecuted minority and it is necessary to show support for a beleaguered community. For many Pride events, however, that is simply not true. The point for those events is to shove explicit sexual behavior into the public square and demand not only acceptance of that behavior, but an endorsement of that behavior. We see this most prominently in "pride parades" where very scantily clad men gyrate sexually and grind on each other in order to be as offensive as possible and then scold and condemn anyone who objects to public displays of explicit sexuality.
It is one thing to argue that homosexuals should be able to live their lives with the partner of their choice, without interference from government or discrimination in housing and employment. It is another thing entirely to shove explicit sexuality - including various degraded "kinks" - into the public square and on public streets, especially in front of children. Promoting tolerance of someone's private life is very different from open displays of deviance on public streets.
This year, Pride Month corresponds with a significant spread of Monkeypox among men who have sex with men. So-called "public health" officials are reluctant to actually acknowledge this, fearing that they will be accused of "stigmatizing" homosexual men. But it is not "anti-gay" to warn of the dangers of sexual promiscuity and to urge caution and restraint. It is anti-gay to refuse to tell the truth and let people die rather than appear "judgmental." These "doctors" are betraying their patients and the general public.
American society is much more accepting of homosexuality than it was even 14 years ago, when Barack Obama became the first Black President after opposing same-sex marriage in his first campaign for the Oval Office. The reason we are seeing a backlash now is not that more people disapprove of homosexuality, but because people are uncomfortable with "kink," sexually explicit behavior and nudity in the public square and in front of children. Parents who expose their children to these things should be prosecuted for abuse.
It's not enough to simply not discriminate, however. Militant homosexuals and radical Leftists demand that you endorse "Pride," and will condemn you if you decline. We saw this recently when ESPN commentator Sarah Spain claimed that the Tampa Bay Rays players who declined to wear a "Pride" patch are engaged in discrimination: "You don't welcome them if you're not willing to wear the patch." She then absurdly connected not wearing a patch to people being denied jobs, health care and housing.
Homosexual activists would have been wise after the Obergefell decision to "take the W" and not push these increasingly graphic scenes into the public square. Demanding that people wear "pride" patches or accept public displays of obscenity will continue to produce a backlash that will grow wider and more intense the more the activists push the envelope. Tolerance works both ways.