One way would start to turn language around.....
Fundie christians are terrorists.....they have a long history of using terrorist tactics and we should start calling them by that name.

Right wing fanatics that were quick to brand anyone who disagreed with Bush traitors.....by their own use of the word they are traitors now in the attacks on our new President before he even takes office.

Lefties need to get over the politeness crap.....

This post is really really...um...good.

I think that it's very important not just to think about the language we use to describe ourselves, but also the language we use to describe political opponents. Use of pejoratives to describe them is, I think, a double edged sword. It radicalizes people who already agree with us by increasing their sense of anger towards opponents (and discourages any attempts to actually understand them), and can be useful for mobilizing your base. On the other hand, it alienates moderates.

There are people who are genuinely conflicted and aren't sure what to think who could be persuaded. There are people who understand the importance of not being jerks towards LGBT people, who would be willing to listen to their stories, but who currently think that something along the lines of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is genuinely loving. For many people who think this, I think that they could be persuaded that this position isn't really loving at all, but arguments would have to be tailored to their current views. In order to get them to hear (and take seriously) arguments that might persuade them or to listen to people's stories, it's important for the person making to argument to create a sense of trust of the part of the audience. This requires demonstrating that you understand where they're coming from and that you respect them. Using polarizing language that assumes everyone who disagrees with you is either evil or stupid not only fails to do this, but it can reinforce in the mind of the audience that the only way that people can disagree with them is by failing to understand they're views.

And that's not helpful for making allies.

Charles, thanks, that was an interesting read.

I had always heard that the term gained popular use in Psychiatry when they pathologized gays as being mentally ill(Kind of like they still do with transexuals, but that is a different argument).

The Christian taliban, is always going to control the direction of the dialogue. No matter how ridiculous their attacks or arguments are, they have the factor of initiative on their side. They can start an attack from the pulpit, spreading their message virally, getting it out among their followers before we even know what they are doing.

Cultural terrorists, that is what they are.

Outside of a legacy of oppression, we are a "sexual minority". Homosexual is entirely appropriate; you fuck other men. Homosexuality is just a part of who you are-- as a person, not a homosexual, to turn your heterosexuality metaphor on its head.

Coupling, interaction, that is all part of a culture that is born out of an oppressive climate. Once that oppression's gone, what are you? You claim that defining by sexuality alone is dangerous; and yet, you would have us defined by a culture we develop in response to discrimination? Equally precocious, if you ask me. Furthermore, I don't know what all this self-righteousness about sex is. Sex is an elemental part of the animal kingdom; why do you validate the view that being sexual beings is something to be ashamed of?

Charles already mentioned that false claim you made about the word's origin, so I'll leave you to get acquainted with the facts.

The point of the word is that we're merely distinguished by who we fuck. We are not inherently different in animalistic aspirations to heterosexuals-- many of us want children, many want companionship, many separate, many are engaged in activities not estranged to heterosexuals. What makes a gay pothead different from a straight one? He fucks men instead.

I was happy to note that you capitalized "Gay."

I have never understood the tendency not to capitalize a group identity and movement allowing a defining phrase of Dr. Kameny to be confused with "having a gay time."

But what do I know, I am a homophile, who knows that truth is a relative concept and history is written by whomever won. A successful politician I knew referred to his sexuality as one facet of a diamond. One facet can cast shadings of color on the rest of the stone, but the facet is not even the stone. The facet is just a mirror to the heart.

Understanding your post I recognize you have been negated for an imprecise reference (Charles was spot on to do this)and treated to ignorant swear words when a more mature level of language would have sufficed. "L" has demonstrated magnificently how many in the "Gay Community" prefer to goad others rather than perfecting themselves. I think you have set an excellent trap whether you meant to or not.

It just seems to me that there's a whole lot more to being gay than just fucking another dude. I always found it interesting that "homosexual" focuses on "having sex with the same gender." Why not focus on "falls in love with the same gender"? We don't categorize people by which gender they love, only which gender(s) they have sex with. It seems like a typical human way of focusing more on the crotch than the heart.