And even so, it's still wrong to describe an object as "stupid" by using the word "gay" when a person who is gay is not automatically "stupid." You're using a negative to describe a human being. That's like using "retard" to describe a race of people. It's derogatory and not progressive in the slightest.
Frankly, I apologize if I expect better of people in general. I see no error in expecting people to do more than just "average." Tolerance is average. Anyone can tolerate something they don't like. I would never be happy with simply tolerance, unless that tolerance was temporary and the tolerant person was striving to be a better person than just a "tolerant person." Quite honestly, simply settling for tolerance and leaving it at that is taking the easy way out, and is doing nothing towards progressing anyone towards bettering themselves.
Of course, I'm not going to force you to not be lazy. I'm simply saying that you're wrong to expect others to be happy with mediocrity.
Also, I agree with Double A:
Second, the characteristics of a single case study are not indicative of an entire population. This is true across pretty much all fields. There are multiple different individual things that influence our minds, our personalities, etc. The proposal that a stroke turned a heterosexual man into a homosexual man is very peculiar in this case, but ultimately doesn't have to mean anything towards the general population. I've never had a stroke, yet I'm gay, so until this case proves some further connection about homosexuality, I'm not sure it really means anything.