I'm not really one to believe that a person is special based on their race, ethnicity, or sexual preference -- I prefer to think we're all rather misguided monkeys with very quirky behavior. Even those of us who would appear to be normal (in that they happen to most closely fit the perceived majority characteristics) are odd. Consider that most people in America believe in a guy from a long time ago who died and supposedly rose from the dead, never mind that they spare their skepticism for his claim of being the son of an unobservable being who supposedly created the universe.
Over the course of this discussion, someone claiming to be gay suggested that they have a right to say that something's gay because they are oppressed for being gay (or, in their words, they have to put up with the dirty looks and hatred associated with that).
This has the interesting consequence of accepting that using gay as a pejorative can be done in a nonoffensive context. If that's the case, then why do you assume that when certain other people use it in an offensive context? Is it merely because the observer assumes that the speaker is straight (and therefore, a part of the majority)? Doesn't that sound dangerously close to the very thing that they purport to speak out against -- specific recognition of a person's characteristic?
It occurs to me that this is really a case of people who are too well off looking for something to demonize. The initiator of the conversation is Caucasian and from a family that's decently well off. She goes to college in an extremely liberal town and grew up in what is arguably the finest country to grow up in. It's quite likely that many of these complainants have never faced real oppression -- they've only read about it. The things that they're calling oppression would only truly oppress those with the weakest of spirits. These are like children playing revolutionaries, recyclers and Prius drivers trying to save the environment, and Terry Nichols' brother discussing resistance against authority despite his apparent ignorance of Gandhi.
(I'll add that may very well have been a product of Michael Moore's editing, but the truth of that doesn't harm the point I'm making).
I've heard an argument made that according to the law, women are weaker than men. Consider that most sexual discrimination cases involve a female complainant who believe that a particular environment is hostile and that the courts in question see fit to protect them from things which bother them.
It's my impression that many things we were told on the schoolyard still haven't really sunk in with people. "Majority rules" isn't democracy. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words really oughtn't hurt you.
If you can't bear the weight of an insult and if reading things which can be interpreted as insulting oppresses you, then I submit that you're a rather pathetic excuse for a human being. It is the height of tragedy that millions of years of evolution could be so trivially defeated by someone pointing out your skin color, sexual preference, or otherwise in less-than-politically-correct terms.