[Mr 5 0]

Nathan:

while i use my personal experience as a source of firsthand data, my stance against intolerance is consistent with any group of oppressed people.

Then your brother's homosexuality has no part in your strong objection to the word 'fag'? I rather doubt that's true, but I'll accept it just to move along here.

the extremists you see trying to cram their agenda down your throat are a small minority indeed.

Unfortunately for all those shy homosexuals, the extremists seem to represent the homosexual 'community' to many straight folks. They really should tell them to cool it. Wonder why they don't?

i choose to be ahthiest

Which was instantly apparent when you went ballistic about my being 'religious', even though I never mentioned religion, morality or anything connected to Christianity. You give it away, Nathan. I've seen this before.

i know its easy to dismiss what i have said to you so easily but im curious......so just how far _can_ you go without it being hate? where do you draw the line?

Nathan, you used the word 'hate', not I. I simply pointed out that this is a common tactic used by homosexuals to kill any discussions that are negative toward them. It's a debate-killer and you must be aware of that. I doubt this is the first time you've engaged in this type of discussion, on the net or in person.

Ridicule through the use of some otherwise tame lable such as 'fag' is certainly not 'hate'. That homosexuals choose to call it that does not make it so. I do not like being called intolerant but because you call me that does not render your judgement as actual truth, it's just your opinion.

True 'hate', to me, is wanting someone dead, which is why the homosexual's overuse of the word has rendered it almost meaningless when a tame little word like 'fag' is portrayed as 'hate'. No sensible person is buying that concept. It's simply overkill. Worked the first few thousand times, but now no one but over-sensitive homosexuals and their advocates see it that way. Oh, and the media, of course. To them, anything remotely negative aimed at a homosexual is also considered 'hate'. BS in a bucket.

show me anywhere i have attacked your faith???? i question any scientific study thats based in religious doctrine, but thats not attacking your faith.

Rather coy of you - but I'll play. When you sneeringly dismiss my opinions of homosexuality with statements such as: i seriously doubt you know anything about homosexuals other than what theyve told you to think and believe in church....... then you attempt to claim that my opinions come from what is, in your opinion, ignorance - church teaching - and so, you attack my faith, but never mind. In the interest of brevity and eventually concluding this discussion, I'll accept your premise that you never actually attacked my faith...just derided it's teachings and my knowledge of homosexuality. How's that?

i ask you to show me where i have been a hypocrite, or retract that statement.

You base your entire argument on the position that the use of the word 'fag' is 'intolerant' yet when others attempt to defend it as a legitimate (negative) opinion, you call it 'hate speech' and dismiss the defense out of hand, based on your personal judgement.

That's intolerance for others POV and yet - you proclaim your tolerance! You make judgements about who is 'oppressed' (homos) and then you make a judgement about what is 'hate speech' (fag) and from there you take it upon yourself to use your personal judgements to criticize and lecture us about 'tolerance'. That's hypocrisy.

There will be no retractions. You're as intolerant of folks who occasionally make some mild ridicule of homosexuality as we are of those who may practice it while posing as macho. That's hypocrisy on stilts - whether you accept it or not. Your assertations of sensitivity, decency and whatever other attributes you awarded yourself are your opinion and not shared by all, Nathan. Good intentions don't count here in the real world.

<sigh>....please show me any hysteria or angry rants. please back up your statment with a firm example of what you claim. i have been just as calm and polite as you have been

Please stop sighing, Nathan. Try to stay with us here. Your whole post was one long rant, but, to be fair, so are mine. Hysteria is when you take a little word like 'fag' and turn it into an long-winded 'issue' about so-called tolerance. That's hysteria....much ado about very little.

you claim to have studied homosexuality so i am simply asking for an example of your courseware. if you cant quote an example of your courseware thats fine but dont attempt to turn it into something else to side track my request. it is my _belief_ based upon your statements that you have no experience with impartial, scientific data by which to study homosexuality. surely you dont believe that religious doctrine would be impartial on a topic such as homosexuality?

Quote:i find it appauling that you would attempt to associate nambla with typical homosexuals. it is all too typical of the southern bible belt propoganda machine.

The 'bible belt propaganda machine'? Would that be anything like the homosexual propaganda machine that always denies anything to do with NAMBLA while they never denounce them forcefully? Just wondering.

Your assumption that university 'studies' are totally impartial is mistaken. The fact that you constantly refer to them and smugly accord them total impartiality is your choice but not a proof of anything but that you believe what you want to believe and use other's like-minded 'studies' to bolster your belief. It's circular but you already know that so let's move on, shall we?

tolerance is a two way street but there is no such thing as free speech without responsibility!

A few people calling a 'suspected' homosexual man who has generally portrayed tough-guys, as Vin Diesel has, a 'fag' is not irresponsible. This isn't a national TV show or a newspaper, Nathan. It's simply a Mustang messageboard, nothing more. I seriously doubt 'ol Vin would care much what he was called here.

i have asked for proof (indirectly through requesting your courseware) that you have studied homosexuality but thats not the same thing. please remain on track here.

I'm quite on track and that is what seems to frustrate you.

I didn't take any university courses on homosexuality and my brother isn't a homosexual. That you have and yours is does not impart some sort of superior knowledge to you on the subject. We're making generalizations here, Nathan. You assume way too much. I've read much literature on the subject (no, not in those much-derided church publications) and I have a reasonable understanding of the subject of homosexuality. Having a course credit or two in a very ambiguous field of study doesn't accord you the 'expert' status that you seem to award yourself by virtue of the fact that you constantly refer to these studies. Your brother's homosexuality may actually color your perceptions of what's 'hate speech' and what's simple joking at another's expense, which is human nature, like it or not.

lol.....man on man is _quite_ natural for homosexuals. they get turned on by other men. it isnt a "choice", its the way they are. could you chose to be turned on about anything that didnt naturally turn you on? i think not.

Then pedophiles 'can't help' being attracted to children, either? Especially the homosexuals? Hmmmm. Sure we want to go there, Nathan? Where is that elusive 'gay gene' anyway? lol.

<sigh>....of course you do! but having an opinion is not the same thing as expressing it irresponsibly. as i asked another, would it be ok for the kkk to ralley in front of 1st graders? would that be simply a matter of free speech?

This discussion seems to tire you out Nathan with all that sighing. Maybe you need a nap.

Equating the KKK holding a rally 'in front of 1st graders' to calling a suspected homosexual a 'fag' on an internet Mustang messageboard is quite a stretch, Nathan, even for you. Try again. Never mind, don't, it's a lame argument. I love the way 'Nazi's' are always brought in these conversations in some form. I thought we had moved on to the 'Taliban' when smearing people these days. Keep up, Nathan.

i strongly disagree with you. it (fag) is a derrogatory term used to hurt a socially oppressed group of people. it is indeed one in the same.... the church will teach you its different because homosexuals are "sinners" but thanks to a separation of church and state, as citizens of this country we arent governed by religious doctrine.

Well, now. "A socially oppressed group of people"? Is this an attempt at humor? What a crock, Nathan and you should know it. Who do you think you're discussing this with, a junior-high school kid? Homosexuals are far, far from 'oppressed'. They have laws protecting them from every possible form of discrimination possible and they are quick to avail themselves of those laws as they have a right to do.

The median income of homosexual men is usually quite high. They are 'out' everywhere you look, especially in the media (TV, movies, music). Homosexuals are oppressed? Tell that to a black person sitting in a ghetto. Using 'oppressed' when referring to homosexuals is an insult to those here and elsewher who are truly oppressed.

That's simply your skewed view, based on gay propaganda and your sympathy for your brother's homosexuality talking... or sheer ignorance. Hopefully, the former. Dragging in the church views on homosexuality is a straw man that you knock down quite well. (clap clap). I've never mentioned the church (what church, anyway?) or even touched on the morality issue so why do you keep wanting to go there? So you can attack it? Don't bother. While I have moral views on the subject, they are not relevant here, as you well know, so please stop trying to inject them into the discussion. It's cheesy.

many blacks regularly refer to one another as "******". that doesnt make it right for you or me to use that same word in a derrogatory manner.

Blacks who use the 'N-word' to each other but object to a non-black using it are galloping hypocrites, as are homosexuals that throw all the words for 'gay' around between themselves but want to file a lawsuit if a straight person uses it. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-C-Y Nathan, pure and simple. You can't have it both ways, even though many try.

yes. since this thread has begun i have heard from a handful of homosexuals. i havent quoted anything because the "email" excuse is a weak one but ill mention it now since you asked directly.

they dont want to be ridiculed further in a forum where the forum moderator has already publically stated that ridicule is ok and acceptable. their privacy is more important than an internet message board so they say nothing. i can understand why.

Are they Mustang Works members? If so, I would appreciate hearing from them via a PM or e-mail. Then, I can not only validate your claim but respond to the complaints, if there are any. If they are non-members giving you 'moral' support, that doesn't count for much with me. Like-minded people naturally support each other.

im a bit taken back by your statements (particularly since as a moderator you are looked at as the voice of reason), but im perfectly calm.

Good, and yes, I am a voice of reason but not everyone likes my reasoning.

dude......you think ive "attacked" you? thats being a bit dramatic is it not? should i just agree with everything so that none of you are called to task when you say something i disagree with?

Right back at you...dude. My disagreements with your philosophy regarding the use of words are as valid as your disagreements with me. It's form that matters. You've given as much as you've received and have no basis for any claims to being silenced. Not that you would, of course. Your 'calling me to task' is intellectually valid and I'm responding to you as specifically as I can. I could have just told you to lighten up and get over it, but I'm taking the time and effort to give you a complete reply and while I'm at it, challenge many of your assumptions and empty allegations in the process, something you're probably not used to hearing. You know, this may actually be good for you Nathan. Maybe you'll learn something.

where have i called you any names? where have i called ANYONE "names"?

'Intolerant' comes to mind.

what does being gay have to do with being tough? ... the assumption and belief that homosexual males are all feminine is a clear demonstration of the overall level of ignorance concerning them.

Then someone should tell all the millions of homosexuals doing the high voice, feminine gestures and generally acting like girls in men's clothing (and sometimes in girls clothing) to knock it off. That guy who plays 'gay' on the TV show 'Will & Grace' should be told that he doesn't represent homosexuals and he's ignorant. I wonder how he gets away with it? You would think that the homosexual organizations would be all over this by now. All I hear is silence. Maybe that's because they approve of the portrayal he presents? Think about that a moment before calling everyone who sees 'gay people' as men acting effeminate, 'ignorant', no matter how many push-ups they can do in the gym.

To attempt to claim that the majority of homosexual men are big, tough, macho types simply flies in the face of almost everyones actual experience with homosexuals. Your flawed perceptions of homos as 'Just like us in every way - except who they love' is right out of the homosexual debating handbook (if there was such a thing). I've seen it before and it's a lame argument because it clashes with everyday reality.

I never considered this debate to be a flame war and in fact im quite impressed that no one has accused me (yet) of being an in the closet gay myself with a hidden agenda. we have core differences but id still shake your hand and say "nice to meet you".

And I'm quite impressed that you haven't accused me of being a 'latent' homosexual. Good for both of us.

Yes, we certainly do have core differences but I hold no animus toward you for any disagreement. That said, I don't know where else to go with this thread, Nathan.

I don't have time to continually debate the same issue over and over and deconstructing each others posts is interesting but ultimately gets rather boring.

Mustang Works maintains a high level of quality and has for the seven years it's been on the web. We have a (deserved) good reputation. That we allow 'fag' and a few other words to be used about homosexuals is a fact and while we don't allow heavy profanity, racism or personal attacks, everyone is offended by something and we have to draw lines on both sides; both for and against.

Some here believe we're way too restrictive on what we allow - so you simply can't please everyone. Obviously, we didn't please you. I'm sorry if the use of a few words that characterize homosexuals in a somewhat negative way annoys or surprises you but we will not change the policy and while it's been an interesting discussion, it's getting really old. I suggest we both retire from the debate - but in order to not be accused of being dictatorial I'll leave the thread open awhile for any final words you may wish to add, but please, let's not continue the same discussion. Been there, done that.

If you wish to make a final statement and have it uncontested, as long as it's civil and not personal, it will stand unanswered by me (I cannot vouch for other members).

Beyond that, I have nothing more to add, Nathan.

Nice meeting you, too. Drop by again sometime, hopefully under friendiler or at least less intense circumstances.