I thought you agreed with free speech earlier lissener, saying something is legal then saying you can’t to it anywais is kinda pointless. As for me Ive never been a part of popular culture so I don’t really care what it agrees on even if it could possibly agree.
Also I included both quotes for a reason which is to question whats the diffrence between social and cultural consensuses. Because from where im standing it looks like your dissagreeing with yourself.
Asmodean, the point is not that you can’t or mustn’t say rude things. The point is that Scylla is whining about the fact that if he engages in a familiarity to which he is not entitled, other people are going to take offense. It has nothing to do with the right of free speech and everything to do with tact, empathy, and understanding of the social use of language.
Forgive my incredulity, but it’s the first I’ve received from you.
As for goboy’s response, which you share, I have to disagree. In this case the intent does not matter. The fact is, as Esprix states, that it would be rude behavior towards your straight friends. I would think that if you engaged in such behavior it would either mean that you lack the empathy to see that you were putting your straight friend in an uncomfortable position, or that you simply didn’t care.
Even worse would be the idea that I seem to have gotten from your previous posts. Putting a person in such an uncomfortable position might be somehow justifiable because he is not gay. Perhaps it is ok because the person is a member of a group which has practiced bigotry against gays, or perhaps its use is educational, to give this person a small taste of the discrimination received by the gay community.
I like your idea of the societal baselines and negotiated positions. When two people meet, they must decide their relative social standing and use or fail to use certain honorifics as acknowledgements of their relative positions.
I simply fail to see how being Gay, in and of itself automatically conveys any special status not enjoyed by non-gays. If my understanding is correct, Gay is not something you earn as goboy asserts. Rather, it’s something you are.
The experiences you incur as a result of being gay MAY give you status worthy of recognition, but I suppose it’s also entirely possible to be gay and have it easy. There’s no way of knowing, just as there is no way of knowing what special circumstances may exist that give me status worthy of recognition. As you say, we have to work this out on our own as we get to know each other.
Therefore, these things shouldn’t be taken into account in terms of honorifics.
Gay, does not automatically confer special status.
Asmodean, you cut a “not” off my quote; read it again. It’s not contradictory.
Okay lissener, I have to say that I am persuaded by this argument and your fervor in expressing same through these three pages that “queer” is basically a word too tangled with individual perceptions for me to really ever want to use. I don’t have any desire to offend people, (unless of course I think there’s someone in desperate need of it :D) and it seems that altough there are a lot of people who use it honestly, there are still too many who do not do so. I can say though, that I was unaware that it was really an issue until reading this thread. After seeing the word used so often in a neutral fashion, I thought it was a word that had basically been lifted from its less savory days. I think I’ll try to stick with “gay” or “homosexual” in discussing these issues, and just hope that is sufficient to make my point.
However, I do still believe that it’s problematic for the gay community that some portions of it use “queer” as their preferred label, while others deem it insulting. I suppose that given enough time, it will lose the rest of its sting, and it can be used without causing anyone to feel any hurt.
Scylla, you’re condemning me for practicing behavior that you hypothesized, not that I engaged in. I’ve never engaged in such behavior, and I agree that it would be rude to do so. I was responding to your apparent audacity in seeming to make your discomfort more important than my reaction to hateful words. You seemed to be saying your discomfort in this fictional situation made it okay for you to call me queer. That’s what I was so flabbergasted by. It would be rude of the fictional gay people in your fictional example, but I would be more amazed at the hypocrisy of your discomfort than at their pettiness.
It doesn’t, automatically, all I’ve been saying is that the definitions of what constitutes a relationship is a private matter. Your failure to understand a kinship doesn’t matter; the conferrence of kinship is a private matter. And it’s not a status–you continually inject to vocabulary of hierarchy, which no one but yourself is using–but merely a shared experience, therefore a kinship, therefore a relationship. In any case, where do you get “not enjoyed by non-gays”? Where did I mention gays in my abstract description of the cultural consensus that is at the heart of my post? Gay/black/jewish/whatever are just the individual concrete examples of the universal courtesy and respect for privacy I’m talking about. There’s no gay/non-gay issue at the heart of it: you’re the one who insists that a relationship’s being between gay men makes it different, in principles of privacy, from other exampled relationships. I’m simply arguing that all relationships hold these things in common.
Aren’t you just paraphrasing what I said about each relationship having to be negotiated separately, one at a time? And “status worthy of recognition”–give me a break! No one’s asking for a fucking medal! Just the privacy to make my own decisions of language within a relationship, and the acknowledgement that this doesn’t change the cultural consensus.
Where the hell are you pulling this out of? Being a private individual with the right to private relationships is the only “status” I have ever demanded in this thread.
I just wanted to add some thoughts about the whole “breeder” vs. “queer” argument. I think I was the first to cast a doubt on its validity, and that initial post was hastily written.
The way I see it…
1 - A major crux of this whole thread has been the word “queer”. Some of us (both gay and straight) have stated that it seems to be becoming an acceptable term to refer to the gay community, through its use by the gay community.
2 - Others (mostly gay) have asserted that it is always a slur.
3 - Those in disagreement about this are trying to convince each other to change their minds.
4 - Someone called Scylla a “breeder”.
5 - In an attempt to prove his point, Scylla said, “don’t call me that it’s discriminatory.”
6 - In an attempt to turn the tables on Scylla, someone said, “Isn’t that ‘special privileges?’”, and substituted the word “queer” with the word "breeder from Scylla’s own post.
Now go up and look at point 1. We can’t make the same substitution, and have a valid argument. Allow me to cut/paste and substitute:
A major crux of this whole thread has been the word “breeder”. Some of us (both gay and straight) have stated that it seems to be becoming an acceptable term to refer to the straight community, through its use by the straight community.
That’s what I was addressing. The straight community does not use the term “breeders” to refer to themselves.
I’m not even saying that that word isn’t defensible. I said I had only heard it used by gay people to offend straight people. What I did not say, and which I should have, is that I’ve only heard it used by gay people as a retaliation for something offensive said to them.
I’ve never been chased by a rogue gang of homosexuals screaming, “It’s a breeder, lets get him fellas!”
It usually happens when an insensitive jerk says, “Goddamn faggots.” Which is hardily, and rightfully, replied with, “Fuck you, breeder.”
That’s why I said I don’t care if you use it, because I don’t believe that sort of retaliation has never been warranted against me.
Lissener:
The way you’ve restated things seems quite reasonable. You will, in all fairness have to admit that this is somewhat different from your original thesis that “queer” should be automatically a gay-only word. Thisof course engenders the possibility for mislabelling of non-gays as bigots (as seems to have happened to Rudy in the OP article) as well as in extreme cases the potential for reverse-prejudice.
As a side note, I found that the fact that my simple disagreement with you on this subjected me to attack and insults to which had I retaliated I would have almost surely been labelled a bigot. The gay members who responded (excepting Esprix,) felt no such compunctions and were free to hurl sexually disparaging comments with impunity.
It seems to me now that the measure of a words derogatory nature is mostly in the intent with which it was used. In which case “breeder” as it was used here was surely such, and no better than Archie Bunker crying “Faggot!.”
I find the honorifics or lack of such used in Default polite discourse to be quite interesting. They do imply power and status.
I deeply apologize for the intolerable pain and suffering you endured from being called a breeder. I know now that you have never been, are not, and never will be a breeder.
Not my S.O., but yes, there’s this wonderful thing called community among us. If I were, say, at a non-specific (but non-specifically gay) conference and spotted someone with a rainbow sticker on their car or in some other way indicate that they’re gay as well, yes, I think to myself, “Whew! I’m not the only one here!” and go make conversation with that person, be they gay male, lesbian, cute or not. And perhaps we might even discuss whether or not we like the word “queer” as used to pertain to our community.
Scylla, your opinions are noted and certainly valid, but I’m not sure why this horse is being beaten to death. The reality is that you use the word “queer” at your peril, regardless of whether or not we as a gay community self-identify with the word. Copping an attitude about it only serves to alienate the same people you claim to want to respect. Is it fair to the non-gay community? Perhaps, perhaps not, but telling gay people, “If I can’t use it then neither should you” is counterproductive.
So you make the call.
Esprix
Well, duh! 
Obviously this is a big part of the problem, but as there is no Gay Tribal Council to dictate Gay Policy, there will continue to be dissention over whether or not the word is appropriate (just as some in the black community . It is acceptable to note that at this time the word can be taken either way, derogatory or inclusive - again, you roll the dice, you takes your chances. Eventually this may change. Wouldn’t the prudent course be to avoid using the word until acknowledged that it won’t offend?
Similar discussion - do you know how long it took me to be able to kid around with my Asian friends about things like “rice queens,” “potato queens,” “chinks,” “Japs,” and doing lousy imitations of the misuse of L’s and R’s? Yes, these are things they kid around with among themselves, even in front of me, but I never once was offended by this because I recognize that I’m not part of their culture. I finally figured that having dated so many Asian men I had the “right” (to coin a phrase) to be able to kiddingly use these terms and not offend (although I did get slapped when I noted the “cute chinky boy” on DS:9 once, but that was the first time I’d used it among that particular group of friends - they forgave me after much harassment ;)). I still, though, do not use such terms, even kiddingly, around people I don’t know.
To me, “PC” means “plain courtesy.”
Esprix
goboy doesn’t read well. My feelings aren’t hurt. My comment pertained to what your usage of the term “breeder” said about you.
Esprix:
After this thread rest assured I have no intention of using the word “queer,” even if I had an official letter of dispensation from the Pope of gayness himself. That’s just being polite.
My interest, and why I’ve dragged on so much here is to understand the rationale behind the semi-exclusive claims to usage of the word in polite conversation and more interestingly what that says about the relative viewpoints betweeen Gay/non gay.
As you’ve pointed out It’s very easy to stumble in the use of these quasi-derogatory terms even when you go into it with your eyes open. Trying to codify it interesting.
In hindsight we probably should have done this first, but what the hell.
First, you hit the nail on the head Exprix. The most important thing is being polite.
Second, I feel like dragging this out more. When I’m feeling slightly more coherent, I just woke up, I’ll post some more comments on words themselves. For now, I’d like to get opinions on another word. Nancy. This is a good example for you Scylla. This is a word that I would use to discribe a former roomate. However, if a gay friend called him nancy behind his back I would probably take offense. This is a word that not only can’t be used by the straight community, most of the gay community shouldn’t use it either. What do others think of “nancy”
I’m not familiar with Nancy other than as a proper name.
Do you mean pansy? That one’s interesting. I take it as a derogatory only term that suggests a male hetero who displays stereotpical gay characteristics.
Using “breeder” says nothing about me. I used it to get a reaction. It worked. I wanted you to see how it felt to be called names. You should listen to Esprix.
Nancy? A very, very, very, effeminate obnoxiously out gay man. Now, the guy who I had to live with was a bear, so it wasn’t like he wasn’t masculine too. But, imagine having to watch TV with someone who everytime a commercail came on, would have to comment on it.
“Oh no girlfriend”
“Bitch!”
“You’re dreaming. They are NOT looking at you”
“What a queen”
and on and on and on.
goboy:
you said:
“. I used it to get a reaction. It worked. I wanted you to see how it felt to be called names.”
Actually that says quite a lot about you.
I do tend to listen to Esprix, and give him the benefit of the doubt when I may disagree with him. He’s earned that respect. You haven’t.
goboy said:
“I know now that you have never been, are not, and never will be a breeder.”
heh. heh.
That’s not your Mom says. 
Ok damnit. I’ve got to got to got to change my sig.
I’m sorry, it’s just too funny.
If either of you object I’ll change it back.
Well, so that’s where you’re going to go. Since is not the Pit, I will not respond other than to say, if had the respect of a creature like you, I would need a shower.