@Greatest I am,
If I qualified every statement, all I would get in replies are TLDR.
You want perfect, go read a book.
The main problem is one of hypocrisy, yet again.
You are essentially criticising homophobes (which I quite understand), by:
- your using a language structure that paints all peoples of a group with a negative characteristic, in support of your belief
...which structure is just as sloppy as homophobes who:
- use of a language structure that paints all peoples of a group with a negative characteristic, in support of their beliefs
(as a sidenote, the 'negative' characteristic' assigned to groups by discriminators is broad <like the phrase 'moral sense'>, which without discussion then omits any admission of the good side of the broad trait <like moral sense> that the group, or individuals may possess. So the words demonise all, totally, as individuals...which, when enough of these language structures support their beliefs... eventually allows 'believers' to use violence, because of the totallity of the 'wrong/evil' they see)
The fact is, many corrupt ideologies engage in this sloppy thinking structure in support of their beliefs (there are other sloppy structures). You are complaining/criticising their beliefs, but using the same sloppy formats in language that they do, in order to support your beliefs.
I'm not asking for perfection, I'm asking for qualifiers that don't make your behaviour hypocritical, which qualifiers will also add clarity and accuracy
to your posts - both traits are necessary for other posters to understand you, and both traits are necessary to avoid engaging in discriminatory, demonising behaviour of the whole of a person, rather than specific beliefs of a person.