I'm not defining what is and is not gay, I'm saying that "one who is sexually attracted to those of one's own sex" is how we define homosexual and 'gay' is just a slang term for that. I'm just citing the definition, not deciding what it is. If you don't feel that 'gay' is synonymous with 'homosexual' in this context, then we won't be able to have this debate.

To address your claims about me, no, I'm not saying I'm only willing to tolerate a plain vanilla male personality. I don't mind a guy wearing a pink shirt; I don't mind an effeminate guy; I don't mind a gay guy; and I don't mind any combination of these things.

However, if he shoves a picture of his asshole in my face, unprompted and at work no less, then he's an asshole. If he accuses me of being homophobic just because I don't like him, then he's an asshole.

If this character was a straight woman with penis paraphernalia all over her desk, a picture of her asshole on her phone, and detailed genital descriptions of the guy she slept with last night, I wouldn't like her either.

Congratulations! Your video, Key & Peele: Office Homophobe, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 2 Badge!

Your video, Key & Peele: Office Homophobe, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

You shouldn't worry about racist words, you should worry about racists. I don't have to use the word "nigger" to be a racist, I just have to be one. My favourite Ice T song is "Straight Up Nigga", am I a racist when I quote it's lyrics?
Everybody throws a hissy fit about famous people using the wrong words but we accept intolerant douchebags on TV all the time as long as they watch their language.
You see the same thing with homophobes all the time, it's actually worse regarding this issue. Say "fag" and the internet is up your ass in no time, say the shit Palin and Santorum say and it's just an opinion or believe and you get to be on TV.
Fuck that. I don't care what words you use, if you're an ally, you're on my side. Rude assholes who are on my side are better than nobody, I take what I can get. And my side is the one that that doesn't care about your pigmentation or who you love.
That nigger in the video isn't a racist and you wasting your time worrying about his choice of words, take it from the infidel, fat, cisgendered kraut-breeder. That man is on our side. He's just not politically correct.

Consider me suitably chastised. I shouldn't have called him what I did

However, if we are to accept that the likes of lantern and bob provide a differing viewpoint and don't deserve banning (which I support), then they have to accept that their comments, especially when frequently racist and/or homophobic, are going to provoke a negative reaction.

My reaction was perhaps a tad over the top, but it was just such a pointless comment. It added nothing to the discussion. He wasn't even arguing against the video, just looking for a reaction, which I stupidly provided him with. That, to me, is being a troll.

Yeah, that John Waters being homophobic would be kinda odd

@eric3579, it's "Panti" Bliss, not Patti.

By the way, in case anyone is interested, this is the article that Panti found homophobic. I can't imagine where he got that idea....

Now it's just funny to make homophobic jokes ironically. Like pretending to be Eric Cartman or similar sentiments. But actually witnessing childish homophobia... that's pretty weird to me nowadays, even among the people I know who don't necessarily approve of the lifestyle.

I wonder when/if our generation of offensive, abusive irony will dissipate? I don't mind it, but it seems like a natural progression for popular culture. For example, do you really hear "retard" jokes any longer? Was In Living Color the last mainstream sketch comedy with mentally challenged jokes?

I could be wrong on this, but I don't recall recent stuff along those lines -- except South Park, but they're very, very special.

It was a fine theory, but I don't think the reverse psychology of saying it's gay to insult gays actually works on homophobes. And teasing them about potentially being gay seems to validate their childish attitude.

As the culture moves away from homophobia being accepted, I almost think those insecure macho men will be relieved. It's got be be exhausting to be that paranoid.

I am guessing that I was one of the first pastors, if not the first, in my community not in opposition to gay marriage. I don't say this with any sense of accomplishment of having wrestled through some sort of epic moral struggle, because I never have opposed gay marriage as sanctioned by the State. I don't believe there is any Constitutional basis for opposing it. . I also see no issue with a business serving the gay community. By default, our family business has happily done so for decades. One of my favorite mottoes is, 'live and let live.' I am confident that people around me, including those gays that call me 'friend' know this about me already. Although I am a part of the Christian community where I live, not one of my gay friends has exited our relationship due to that, nor have I ever been considered a homophobe. My views on marriage are exactly that: conclusions I have come to with the resources at my command. And whether or not I disagree with you, I believe that I have no right whatsoever to impose my view of marriage on anyone. In the same breath, after considering my own failings, I have no right to judge how someone else chooses to live their life. I have concluded that whatever path they choose was never between me and them, but between them and God anyway.

The solutions to this common struggle today (the question of religious conscience living side by side with gender liberty) cannot be solved by enacting more law. Americans are, as always, legislating the soupe du jour. The trouble is, in a society where that kind of 'might makes right,' the pendulum can and does swing the other way to deleterious effect. I think that our common issue can be solved by a simple but powerful idea: a stronger community. Like it or not, we are in this together and only together can overcome the vitriol on either side.

I remember an incident many years ago when my Muslim ex-Uncle showed up at my grandparent's house for dinner. On the menu: pork. In one of the most despicable acts of imposition that I can remember happening in our family, my Grandfather decided that serving pork that day would give him some kind of twisted self satisfaction; a victory, of sorts. He decided that he would attempt to get our Uncle to violate his religious conscience and, if that not be possible, at the very least, offend my Uncle as much as possible within his power. I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't within my Grandfather's rights to serve whatever meal he wanted in his own home. But was it morally right? If he had loved my Uncle, he would have put aside his own rights and made a way to foster community. That is what living together is about.

In the same vein, I don't believe any one of my gay friends would ever ask me to perform their wedding. Even given that right legally, they wouldn't ask because they love me and they would not attempt to get me to violate both my conscience and my own understanding of marriage. While we agree to disagree, we remain friends out of love. Love is what binds. The law divides. The law is a foreigner to community, the enemy of community, when it says, 'we can live together only when you do as I want you to do in order to satisfy me or my sense of offense for another." While laws are necessary in society, they are superfluous when love will do. But we don't want to work that hard. So we make rules. We call people names. We stereotype. We divide, condescend, and foment bitterness toward our neighbors, gay and straight alike.

I had a friend confess to me once, "My whole family is racist. I was racist. But I'm not racist any more." That didn't happen because of legislation. It happened because he got to know some black people and found out that he had some love in his heart for them. Wouldn't you have liked to have been there when he shook a black man's hand for the first time in his life? Yeah, me too.

Just once, I'd like to see someone brew some iced tea, walk across the street to that gay neighbor or that Christian neighbor and sit down and find some commonality. I read above (can't remember who wrote it) that the Bible's morality is trumped by today's morality. I say that the epitome of morality exists in the words of Jesus when he says, "Love your enemies." That, to me, is the fulfillment of what it means to be human.

In related thoughts, I think the Church needs to tell the State, 'Goodbye. We are not going to act as your agent any longer in arena of legal marriage. We will not sign your documents. You have the legal authority over marriage in our society but the Church has the spiritual authority as the Church sees fit." That leaves room for some congregations to perform gay weddings and others to not as they see fit. It leaves room for live and let live. It leaves room for love.

@VoodooV

is that what you did?
you just wanted to understand morganths downvote?
for him to clarify his position on why he would downvote a video on discrimination?

ok..let us look at your original comment shall we?

"ahh the coward @Morganth rears their ugly head as well.

come on out of the shadows and defend your downvotes, your homophobia, and your shitty religion, if you can."

i didnt see you ask once WHY he downvoted.
i did,however,see you call him a coward,a homophobe and disrespect his religion.

now maybe each one of your assumptions are spot on but we will never know the truth of that.
why?
because they are assumptions!!!

which is what i was pointing out.i am not defending morganths possible (and maybe probable) homophobia,i am defending his right to downvote without being harassed.

you do not know why he downvoted and neither do i.
maybe he just didnt like the video.
maybe huckebee is his uncle.
maybe he IS a homophobe.
maybe he just doesnt like you.
who knows?

and now we may never know because you did not just ask him to clarify his position..you ridiculed him..in public.

and that brings me to my secondary comment which deals with this issue and i think its an important one.
the subjectiveness of our own perceptions.

now maybe being called names and being poked in the ribs will bring you out to defend your position.....but thats YOU.other people may have a totally different reaction/response.

if your desire to understand is the motivation then maybe calling people names is not the best path in order to get them to share some of their inner-most feelings and/or ideologies.

to get respect you have first to give it.
and assumptions and presumption is disrespectful.

So just to be clear, if an artist is homophobic, that's ok?

How about sexist? If I hire a photographer for a corporate event to celebrate the hiring of a new female CEO, it's cool for them to say "nah, I think women should be home raising kids"?

How about racist? How about discriminating on religious grounds? How about just ugly people? "I would shoot your wedding, but frankly, you're both just hideous and let's face it you don't need photos reminding you of that"

Fuck that.

The difference between the real situation of someone being discriminated on sexual orientation and @Darkhand's ridiculously contrived example of being forced to write a song about hating cats is that hating cats is perfectly socially and legally acceptable. Discriminating against people based on ethnicity, gender or orientation is not.

If you "take photos, make videos, design clothes" you're not an artist, you're a business. Your business happens to include art but you're already "whoring" yourself by offering your services for money. And the price of doing business is that you agree to abide by laws, one of which says that you cannot discriminate based on certain attributes.

OTOH, if you're a landscape artist who's commissioned by an oil company and you want to say "nope, I am not ethically comfortable with you" then yes, you have the right to refuse.

Idk. Phelps et al took homophobia to a whole new level. It's easy to rail against such a comic book villain. Disagreeing with Phelps, even on his stance on homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean you still don't have a mostly negative attitude towards homosexuality. I'm thinking of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd. I think Huckabee and his ilk fit into this sort of "homophobia lite". They dress their bigotry up in platitudes and are likely to find support from some or the same people who might have decried Phelps. One might look towards Russia in the run up to Sochi. There you see the same sort of stance, where they enact policy that strips gays of their rights whilst insisting that its not borne of homophobia and is merely to protect children from paedophiles. I do not doubt their sincerity in this belief - most homophobes don't identify themselves as homophobes.

Ultimately I think these extreme undiluted views create an illusion of overwhelming support for gay rights. Perhaps the publicity raised a debate about homosexuality/phobia, but that debate still had to be fought and won by gay rights activists, not through us all uniting against a sort of shill.

I certainly hope things continue the way they have been. Still, there are parts of the world which seem to be regressing in this regard (see Russia again -.-). I have a feeling that rallying against any minority group is always going to be an effective political tactic, especially if it's done under the guise of protecting children from sexual abuse or preserving "family values".

Gay Hugs - An Experiment With Homophobes has been added as a related post - related requested by alien_concept on that post.