Where does one even begin?
Ah, I've got it:
Have you any idea how badly you're tying parents' hands with that? I mean, think of the children, sure, but you're validating they-made-me-do-it peer pressure.
My years at Sciforums have, among all the minor treasures and trials, provided one powerful glimpse of wisdom that I simply cannot deny. To the other, neither can I sketch it fully and appropriately at this point. But it has to do with ego defense and politics. For a long time, it's been apparent that political argument is largely ego defense, but this specific projection has been resolving to better focus, and you have offered up, in terms of gold or cocaine, a boulder of unknown but impressive weight and purity.
To take one's weakness and make it a strength by using it to attack one's opponent is an old political trick. It is also the rationalization and sublimation of simply projecting what one fears onto others. (On a different subject, this is part of what happened to the Republicans in last year's presidential election; they were overwhelmed by their own ego defense.)
Your proposition—
"There are a lot of 'choice(s) one makes'.
If we 'choose' to expect and demand full tolerance of our own 'no choices', should we not be expected to express full tolerance toward anyone else's 'no choices'?"
—is absurd. But it makes sense in a dialectic of neurosis because it also expresses a sort of moral relativism frequently
accused of others in such a manner as to strongly coincide with the nature of the larger principle you're presenting.
That is, for years, as people have struggled for just a little more freedom, just a little better equality—and regardless of whether it's something incredibly obvious like racism or incredibly silly like pop music lyrics—they have consistently been expected to answer for a sort of anarchy projected onto others by conservative fretting.
Indeed, Mr. Robertson is an example of that projection when he compares homosexual congress to bestiality. It's not actually that anyone else is going to lead the push from gay rights to animal sex liberation. Rather, it's that Mr. Robertson isn't smart enough to comprehend the difference. He is projecting his own ignorance onto others, creating his own straw man.
Rather than going with peer pressure, perhaps you might want to simply acknowledge the obvious point and make an ADA defense for homophobia.
One of the reasons people are so frequently astounded by such propositions as you have put forward is that there are so many problems showing through, it's hard to know where to start. The two that really stand out are the idea of peer pressure validating the necessity of bigotry and the projection of dysfunctional moral relativism.
Setting aside the question of whether you
are or simply
play the Dumbest Man on Earth (do
not tell me you drink Dos Equis), the proposition certainly validated acceptance of your claim to superlative idiocy.
But it really doesn't help anyone else. With anything.
Or, to compress all of the above into two simple points:
(1) You're kidding, right?
(2) That makes more sense than you realize, just not in any way that helps you.
