UB Dan wrote:

But don't you see a sort of irony in fighting homophobia by saying anyone full of hate must be gay?

--where did I ever say anyone full of hate must be gay? I am speculating that Clinton Hammond is full of hatred towards gays ("faggots" to use his favorite term) because he himself may harbor feelinsg of latent homosexuality that frighten or repulse him. That is all.

What's your thinking?

--see above.

Or are you just assuming that calling someone gay would be a pithy insult.

--I have no problem with the word "gay" which is, I feel, usually a positive term. Referring to someone in a vindictive way as a "faggot" as Clinton has done in this forum on many occasions is NOT positive; but of course he tries to say, hey, it's okay, that's THEIR word that THEY use with EACH OTHER. That's like saying it is okay for a whitey like Clinton to use the "N" word when referring to a black person because some blacks use that word in their community...this is really arrogant (and ignorant at the same time).

Either way don't you think you are belittling the very group you claim to defend.

--no, I don't.

In essence you have become what you are attacking.

--a homophobe? Not me.

You claim Clinton's mentioning of someone being effeminate or weak is an attack on gays and respond by saying he is a jerk and must be gay.

--not at all what I said, and you really must choose your words more carefully. I take offense at his pejorative and derogatory terminology (which I notice you conveniently fail to address here; why is that?)

Your generalization is neither more fair nor less offensive just be cause you are gay...

--I'm not gay; I am just not a bigot.

maybe some of Clinton's best friends are gay, then his comment is no longer offensive....

--but people whose "best friends are gay" don't refer to people like Ashley MacIsaac as "faggot" and "pedophile" and say "he pees on little boys" etc.--my best friends ARE gay so allow me to know what I'm talking about.

see what I'm saying.

--not really.

Kat, my stronger objection is to Peg's response that says since Clinton called somebody a sissy he is condoning the brutal slaughter of a human and in addition UB Dan is an asshole (?)

--gee, now you're really making sense...

My reference to Matthew Shepard was pretty clear; it is homophobia and hatred towards gays that allows such behavior (gay bashing which tunrs into vioent attack and in this case, murder) to be sanctioned and glorified.

I try to be careful in the way I use language. I realize I can't expect that from everyone. But is it too much to ask that you at least read more carefully?

BTW, still waiting for that quotation wherein I called you an asshole for disagreeing with you about Kyoto...