Right. When we accept queer as normal, then we'll be queer by definition. Thanks, Ann, for reminding us that queer is abnormal, by using as a slur one of the common, ordinary, everyday epithets for the perverted. As a schoolyard taunt, it is still very serviceable.

The idea that the crowd’s instinctual reaction to that outrage was “designed to make any gay man or woman in the room feel marginalized and despised” is, however, ludicrous. It wasn’t designed at all, let alone aimed at gay audience members. Indeed, my guess is that it would never occur to most CPAC-ers that any gays would be in the audience.

this sounds a lot like before you tell a joke, "no one here is jewish, right?" You seem to think that is far less offensive than telling a jew joke to an actual jew, which I don't get at all. The only reason her comment was "I'm one of you" is cuz "we all hate faggots together." Sure that wasn't her main point, but it was the context without which her comment wouldn't have made any sense at all.

While the former is now acceptable, I hear the latter can now get a movie rated "R"!![lol]**
What a country!!

I don't know how you define masculinity, but I largely define it by penis size and how much weight you can lift, and I know plenty of faggots who have big numbers on both scales.

So if you think "faggot" impugns someone's masculinity, you're just ignorant.

Terms like "faggot" and "nigger" and "infidel" are used to exclude, to identify the "other" in our surroundings and push it to the side. Their actual meanings are not important. Ignorant people take offense because they think the meaning matters. Intelligent people take offense because they see the ignorant being misled.

Look at the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country. Ignorant Muslims are offended by it because they think we object to Islam. Intelligent Muslims are offended by it because they see that ignorant non-Muslims are being told to object to Islam.

The problem here is twofold. On the one hand, we have tried to label Edwards as the "other" using a label that does not really belong to the "other". It belongs to an entirely different group. When we call that group the "other", we are just lying.

The second problem is that we have simultaneously expressed an expectation or desire that this group is not part of our own. When you say "he is not one of us, he is a faggot" you also say "a faggot is by definition not one of us". You insult all the faggots in the audience. You say that you want them not to be there. Even if there are only a few, even one is too many. It is rude and inconsiderate. We have told everyone under that label that they are unwanted here.

You can rationalise this all you want with claims that Ann Coulter didn't think that much about it. You're right, she didn't - but this is still what she was doing. She just didn't know it. That's the nature of cognition; we often don't know why we've done things, but that doesn't stop us explaining our reasons.

Sure. Although I only said they have come to "accept homosexuality as a normal variation of biology," not homosexual conduct. For some, that's a distinction without meaning, I guess.

I think that's wishful thinking on your part. Considering what the traditional Judeo-Christian view on sexual morality is, and that conservatives almost by definition are people who give a lot of weight to tradition, it seems unlikely that most conservatives -- even those with a college education -- no longer see any moral significance to homosexual conduct.

To put it another way: It's one thing to preach and practice tolerance, and respectfully disagree with homosexuals about the morality of their sexual conduct while accepting their worth as human beings, as friends, or as political allies. It's quite another to preach that their sexual conduct has no moral significance. I think it's plausible that a majority of college-educated conservatives subscribe to the first view. I'm skeptical they subscribe to the second.

Does she really represent what your truly believe

That is why she is always at Republican events, right?

I am sick to death of everyone dancing lightly around this subject because someone might get offended.

You said "dancing lightly." That's awesome.

Suddenly the simple word "gay" has an entirely new meaning, presumably because the homosexual community doesn't want to face reality by referring to themselves by what they really are. So much for "gay pride"! If they are so proud, why can't it be "homosexual pride"?

I am sick to death of everyone dancing lightly around this subject because someone might get offended. And I am even sicker of those who feel the need to apologize for the remarks of others as if they are an appointed spokesperson for all conservatives, or condemn those who make offensive remarks as if they are some high moral authority.

Disagree if you want, perhaps even return a caustic remark of your own if you want. But get off the high pulpit and quit your damn preaching.

As a society, we still find "elitism" acceptable, while any form of traditional morality is found to be reprehensible. It is a fact,however,that iconoclasm simply for the sake of iconoclasm is both childish and intellectually dishonest.

Gee, legion, that doesnt make him gay - he just played a gay guy in the movies! :)