First of all, this thread is quite long so please don't verbally lynch me for not reading everything up til this point, or if I bring up something that has been previously discussed/resolved.
I'm not an etymologist, but I don't believe the words "gay" and "fag" were created to be derisive words against homosexual people (much unlike the n-word). When I say "that's gay," I have no intentions of insulting's someone's sexual orientation. I have no idea when "fag" became a word directed to gays, I'm really surprised at the degree of seriousness some people take it. To me, it almost seems that some gays are going out of the way to be offended by it.
For example: Not to stereotype, but alot of the gay people I know in real life say "Oh my god oh my god oh my god" on a daily basis. A Christian person would be offended by that because it is use of the Lord's name in vain, though a lot of you would probably say that it is the Christian's personal choice to be a member of that religion, and he is going out of his way to choose to be offended by the usage of "omg omg omg," and therefore should not deter the gay individual's freedom of speech. You would likely add that "gay people are born gay, but religious people have a choice in what they want to believe, and thus the same does not apply," but for most religious people I know, belief in their religion isn't really their decision; it's more like do it or go to hell, and the latter isn't really an appealing choice. Then there's the religious people who genuinely love their god, and to not believe in their faith wouldn't even be a possible option in their mind. So why is it ok for anyone to go around saying "oh my god" within earshot of Christians?
That is kind of what I mean when I think that some gays are extra sensitive to offense. While to some it could seem easy for me to simply not say those things that gays do take offense to, but it would really take a great deal of effort to completely remove a word from my vocabulary, as whiny as that sounds.
I honestly don't know what constitutes as homophobia, since it seems more than ok to bash homophobics and equate them with idiots almost immediately.
(More Examples)
While a 12 year old screaming "die fag!!!11!" into his headset would more than qualify to be intolerant, predujiced, and surely idiotic, you can't really call him homophobic. He should receive all the bashing that a petulant ingrate deserves, but a 12 year old would make fun of anyone for anything (as long as they were concealed by a veil of anonymity that the internet so easily provides).
Then there's the actual homophobic. And in this case, the PHOBIA suffix actually applies. Someone who has a severe (and genuine) aversion to gay people, and may suffer from other mental afflictions, and in that case, why should they be hated on? A homophobic doesn't choose to be afraid of gays in the same way an arachnophobic doesn't choose to be afraid of spiders, so why should their irrational fear automatically equate them with intolerant rednecks and those with primitive mindsets?
So in neither case (the 2 most common cases in my opinion) is it really fair to hate on someone for being homphobic: one where the child is too immature or stupid to understand and actually hate gays, and the other where irrational fear (which the individual may not truly feel) dominates clear judgement.
It should be noted that in places like schools (particularly the high school I currently attend), actual homophobic people (in this case, I don't mean those who are dubbed homophobic by just using the word 'gay') are bashed for their disposition just as much as gays are by other peers (which is wonderfully ironic in a way). Same as in this forum.
(I feel a strong backlash approaching, so I'd like to point out the obvious and say in advance: this is an open discussion, and other views should be presented as well.)
Jenny Creed post=7.72320.760633 said:
Hey, you know why the nuclear family as an ideal is programmed into us so relentlessly by the big money companies? It's got the greatest consumer potential of any possible configuration of people. If we live one by one or two by two we don't use quite as much stuff per person for various subtle reasons, and a family of 10 or 20 people living together obviously cut a lot of expenses. But mommy, daddy and two kids is the perfect balance. There's old-fashioned standards for you.
No... That's just paranoid.