NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm 20. I graduated High School in 2005. I heard the same things go on. Not a single time did I hear the word "gay" or "fag" used in any way as a positive adjective. Now say you were gay; for the four years you were in High School, how do you react when a word used to describe you is thrown about like that every day? I know how I did. I was just a little bit angry, but thank goodness I didn't start associating myself as "bad", "not good," "unfair," or "stupid." One might think that this at least plays a small part in why homosexual teen suicide rates highest in teen groups.
Words don't have to kill. They can just taint your entire impression about someone before you even know a thing about them. Studies on this are well-established in the realm of Psychology. The word "gay," that to a kid has a connotation of "stupid," "wrong," and "not good" can go a long way to cause individuals to even automatically assign characteristics to them before you even say hello.

Other than its traditional use, fag has never had any other meaning in the United States. That is why it is different than the word gay. Gay people use gay often in the same manner as this straight girl, having nothing to do with homosexuality, hence it cannot be compared to "reclamation" of words such as fag, ******, etc.

So, by that same rationale, should you want to, should you be allowed to say things like, "that's so niggerish," or "you look kikey," or "only camel joockey's say that," etc.? Where do we draw the line? Is it okay to talk about gays because we haven't seen a homosexual Martin Luther King yet?

Irrelevant. For one, I've never heard ANY of those words uttered. And if they had been, it would be referring to stereotypical things those respective people supposedly do. Gay just means something generally displeasing, annoying, etc. and has developed separately of homosexual, and once again, gay itself is not the original meaning of the word. It would be different if someone said "that's so homosexual".

Gay just means something generally displeasing, annoying, etc. and has developed separately of homosexual
You care to back that up with... oh, well... anything at all?

It's pretty obvious that "gay" is used as a negative turn in order to insult and denigrate homosexuality. It would take quite a bit of proof on your part to show otherwise. Its connection to homosexuality is common sense -- your claim that it is just a linguistic coincidence is anything but.

Why would teenagers use "gay" as an insult if it weren't for the fact that it referred to gay people? Go ahead, provide something. Anything.

You care to back that up with... oh, well... anything at all?

It's pretty obvious that "gay" is used as a negative turn in order to insult and denigrate homosexuality. It would take quite a bit of proof on your part to show otherwise. Its connection to homosexuality is common sense -- your claim that it is just a linguistic coincidence is anything but.

Why would teenagers use "gay" as an insult if it weren't for the fact that it referred to gay people? Go ahead, provide something. Anything.

I won't go so far as to say that it didn't come from that. Common sense shows it did. However, that is not its meaning in that context just as when you refer to the Gay Community you are not referring to just an extremely happy group of people. Common sense also shows that when people say "that test was so gay" that it doesn't refer to the test's sexuality. In fact, if you read any sort of article on the issue, they talk about how in young people the word has become, in the context the girl used it, precisely what I stated it had. You're denying fact otherwise. The only debate here is whether or not its appropriate to use the word to mean something unpleasant. I say it is because:

1. Most people who use it aren't referring to homosexuals when they say it in a disparaging way. They use words like "fag" instead if they are trying to be discriminatory towards homosexuals. Even according to dictionary.com, gay as used towards homosexuals has lost all negativity, LET ME REPEAT, WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE HOMOSEXUALS, both by themselves and the general public.
2. Homosexual is not the original meaning of "gay", so it's not unique to it.
3. The two variances have diverged to the point where, just as some words have double meanings, to the YOUNGEST of today's generation, they hear it used in different contexts and do not automatically associate the two.
4. Homosexual individuals themselves often use the word in it's negative context when referring to other things.

However, for you to try and say that people use the word in order to make fun or be rude towards homosexuals in terms of unpleasant things such as exams, punishments, and other unpleasant things when they clearly have nothing to do and share no traits with homosexuals or homosexuality is just plain idiotic, or even any stereotypes of homosexuals is just plain idiotic. It defies logic.

Irrelevant. For one, I've never heard ANY of those words uttered. And if they had been, it would be referring to stereotypical things those respective people supposedly do. Gay just means something generally displeasing, annoying, etc. and has developed separately of homosexual, and once again, gay itself is not the original meaning of the word. It would be different if someone said "that's so homosexual".

:headbang: :headbang:

Common sense also shows that when people say "that test was so gay" that it doesn't refer to the test's sexuality.

No one has made the claim that it does.

The claim is that the basis for ASSOCIATION between the term "gay" and "lame" or "stupid" is homophobia.

Even according to dictionary.com, gay as used towards homosexuals has lost all negativity, LET ME REPEAT, WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE HOMOSEXUALS, both by themselves and the general public.

Um... we all know that. Indeed, "homosexual" has a more negative connotation than "gay."

It's using "gay" as synonymous with "lame" or "stupid" that is offensive - just as using "jewing" to describe extortion or cheating someone is.

:headbang: :headbang:

You can headbang all you want. The word isn't going away, it's not disparaging toward homosexuals, and I'd still like you to address the fact that it's so separated from the homosexual context of "gay" that most people use it, including gay and lesbian people. To get worked up over it is a waste of time, and is so PC that goes beyond debatable and controversial to just ridiculous.

No one has made the claim that it does.

The claim is that the basis for ASSOCIATION between the term "gay" and "lame" or "stupid" is homophobia.
Exactly. The basic reasoning behind the word is:

I think that being gay is an bad/lame/stupid/undesirable thing. So, if I say that something is gay, then that means that I think that it, too, is bad/lame/stupid/undesirable.

It can't be any more obvious. Why are you trying to argue your way around it? It'd be like using a phrase like "those filthy blacks" and trying to excuse it by saying that the word "black" refers to a bad, dirty person rather than to an African-American. You can claim that all you want, but it's fairly obvious what the word "black" really refers to in that context.

Also, why am I getting the feeling that someone with a name like "Roma Islamica" is not exactly going to look at homosexuality with an unbiased eye...

No, it makes it assault.

1. Lots of gay people use it.
2. If you plan on comparing it to the n-word, I'll stop you right here. Their development histories are totally different. The n-word has never had a double meaning, whereas gay is ambiguous term (and the homosexual context is not even the original context).


Interesting. the Oxford English Dictionary seems to disagree with you about whether "******" ever had any different meanings. I guess it must be wrong.

No one has made the claim that it does.

The claim is that the basis for ASSOCIATION between the term "gay" and "lame" or "stupid" is homophobia.



Um... we all know that. Indeed, "homosexual" has a more negative connotation than "gay."

It's using "gay" as synonymous with "lame" or "stupid" that is offensive - just as using "jewing" to describe extortion or cheating someone is.

Jew is the name of a group of people. It has no other meaning. And once again, there is a difference in that the word "jewing" (which btw, I've never heard used, so please find more common everyday examples to which you can compare) is associating a negative racial stereotype with the word. There is no stereotype that associates homosexual individuals with being stupid. I pointed that out previously in that other words such as "niggerish" and "kikey" (once, haven't heard used as adjectives before) would obviously imply negative stereotypes because:

1. Those words have only ever had one real definition, at least in the United States
2. Gay hasn't.
3. Even if gay did in fact only mean homosexual, once again, stupidity or lameness has never been a stereotype of homosexuals or the homosexual community in general.

You need to find a comparable example.

You can headbang all you want. The word isn't going away, it's not disparaging toward homosexuals, and I'd still like you to address the fact that it's so separated from the homosexual context of "gay" that most people use it, including gay and lesbian people. To get worked up over it is a waste of time, and is so PC that goes beyond debatable and controversial to just ridiculous.

You could say the same about any slur or derogatory term re: it's not going away, it's a waster of time, etc.

As for the word being seperated from the homosexual context, that is utter bullshit and you know it. Check a dictionary. In fact, check the OED.

Interesting. the Oxford English Dictionary seems to disagree with you about whether "******" ever had any different meanings. I guess it must be wrong.

I specifically noted, in at least one of my posts, that this holds true in the United States. Overseas might be different, but the context we are looking at here is American lexicon.

You could say the same about any slur or derogatory term re: it's not going away, it's a waster of time, etc.

As for the word being seperated from the homosexual context, that is utter bullshit and you know it. Check a dictionary. In fact, check the OED.

In terms of using it towards inanimate objects, that's about as far away from homosexual as you can get. I would still like you to address the fact that many homosexuals use the term.

Jew is the name of a group of people. It has no other meaning. And once again, there is a difference in that the word "jewing" (which btw, I've never heard used, so please find more common everyday examples to which you can compare) is associating a negative racial stereotype with the word. There is no stereotype that associates homosexual individuals with being stupid. I pointed that out previously in that other words such as "niggerish" and "kikey" (once, haven't heard used as adjectives before) would obviously imply negative stereotypes because:

1. Those words have only ever had one real definition, at least in the United States
2. Gay hasn't.
3. Even if gay did in fact only mean homosexual, once again, stupidity or lameness has never been a stereotype of homosexuals or the homosexual community in general.

You need to find a comparable example.

1. Not true.
2. See #1.
3. No, but being "bad" or "undesirable" is. That is what the objection is too.

Regardless, the fact that you seem to have led a life free from hearing epiteths does not mean they do not exist.

Jew is the name of a group of people.

So is "gay."

It has no other meaning.

When used as a proper noun and capitalized, yes.

And once again, there is a difference in that the word "jewing" (which btw, I've never heard used, so please find more common everyday examples to which you can compare)

Obviously because anti-Semitism, unlike homophobia, isn't socially acceptable.

is associating a negative racial stereotype with the word. There is no stereotype that associates homosexual individuals with being stupid.

No, but "gay" isn't used to mean deficient in intelligence - its meaning is closer to "uncool."

2. Gay hasn't.

The relevant question is whether its other definition is relevant.

It's not.

3. Even if gay did in fact only mean homosexual, once again, stupidity or lameness has never been a stereotype of homosexuals or the homosexual community in general.

In this case, it is less a matter of stereotype as it is of attitude. So what?

I specifically noted, in at least one of my posts, that this holds true in the United States. Overseas might be different, but the context we are looking at here is American lexicon.

You noted that only recently -- after my post. Regardless, the OED has references to other meanings in the American lexicon. Nice try.

I would still like you to address the fact that many homosexuals use the term.

Blacks use the term ******. does that make it not a slur?

Homosexuals use the term queer. does that make it not a slur?

Anyone can use any slur. That doesn't make it not a slur.

Exactly. The basic reasoning behind the word is:

I think that being gay is an bad/lame/stupid/undesirable thing. So, if I say that something is gay, then that means that I think that it, too, is bad/lame/stupid/undesirable.

It can't be any more obvious. Why are you trying to argue your way around it? It'd be like using a phrase like "those filthy blacks" and trying to excuse it by saying that the word "black" refers to a bad, dirty person rather than to an African-American. You can claim that all you want, but it's fairly obvious what the word "black" really refers to in that context.

Also, why am I getting the feeling that someone with a name like "Roma Islamica" is not exactly going to look at homosexuality with an unbiased eye...


You can't compare the two. No one uses the phrase "those filthy blacks" other than to berate blacks. That's self-explanatory. The fact of the matter is, you're using uncomparable and obvious words and phrases. When you say "blacks" you're obviously referring to black people. That's a noun. For a group of people. Just like if you say "The gay community" you're referring to homosexuals, not stupid people.

For you to insinuate something based on my nationstates name and/or presumed religion is wrong and insulting. It's a line that should not be crossed during any kind of debate.

However, for the record I will state that I have gay friends, I support gay marriage, and equal rights for gays in general. Not that I was obligated to share that with you.

Blacks use the term ******. does that make it not a slur?

Homosexuals use the term queer. does that make it not a slur?

Anyone can use any slur. That doesn't make it not a slur.

It does because ****** means a black person when used. That's it.
Gay doesn't. Hence, incomparable examples.

I won't go so far as to say that it didn't come from that. Common sense shows it did. However, that is not its meaning in that context just as when you refer to the Gay Community you are not referring to just an extremely happy group of people. Common sense also shows that when people say "that test was so gay" that it doesn't refer to the test's sexuality. In fact, if you read any sort of article on the issue, they talk about how in young people the word has become, in the context the girl used it, precisely what I stated it had. You're denying fact otherwise. The only debate here is whether or not its appropriate to use the word to mean something unpleasant. I say it is because:

1. Most people who use it aren't referring to homosexuals when they say it in a disparaging way. They use words like "fag" instead if they are trying to be discriminatory towards homosexuals. Even according to dictionary.com, gay as used towards homosexuals has lost all negativity, LET ME REPEAT, WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE HOMOSEXUALS, both by themselves and the general public.
2. Homosexual is not the original meaning of "gay", so it's not unique to it.
3. The two variances have diverged to the point where, just as some words have double meanings, to the YOUNGEST of today's generation, they hear it used in different contexts and do not automatically associate the two.
4. Homosexual individuals themselves often use the word in it's negative context when referring to other things.

However, for you to try and say that people use the word in order to make fun or be rude towards homosexuals in terms of unpleasant things such as exams, punishments, and other unpleasant things when they clearly have nothing to do and share no traits with homosexuals or homosexuality is just plain idiotic, or even any stereotypes of homosexuals is just plain idiotic. It defies logic.

Those silly homosexuals. If they just used some "common sense" and "logic," they'd know there is no such thing as gay-bashing.

You can't compare the two. No one uses the phrase "those filthy blacks" other than to berate blacks. That's self-explanatory. The fact of the matter is, you're using uncomparable and obvious words and phrases. When you say "blacks" you're obviously referring to black people. That's a noun. For a group of people. Just like if you say "The gay community" you're referring to homosexuals, not stupid people.

For you to insinuate something based on my nationstates name and/or presumed religion is wrong and insulting. It's a line that should not be crossed during any kind of debate.

However, for the record I will state that I have gay friends, I support gay marriage, and equal rights for gays in general. Not that I was obligated to share that with you.


Well, if you have gay friends, then you must be right. :rolleyes:

Gay has taken on at least one new meaning since the rising popularity of South Park. When the kids say something is "gay", it usually means lame and has nothing to do with anyone's sexuality. It may have been derived from the fact that the aesthetic stylings of male homosexuals are not very appealing to male heterosexuals, but taking offense to the term is...well....gay.

Even if gay did in fact only mean homosexual, once again, stupidity or lameness has never been a stereotype of homosexuals or the homosexual community in general.

You need to find a comparable example.You are arguing in irrelevant circles, and being overly specific. Let me try again, while being as clear as I possibly can:

In most high school settings, homosexuality is frowned upon. Being gay is a social stigma, and gay people are often mocked. Because of this, the word "gay" has a strong negative connotation. If one student calls another "gay", it is seen as an insult. The word is insulting because it associates the target with homosexuality and all of its social undesirability.

When used to describe an object, it becomes a generic insult. A phrase like "that test was so gay" does not mean that the test was homosexual, obviously. It simply associates the test with the undesirable qualities of a hated minority in order to disparage it. So, while the meaning of the word in this context has indeed shifted from "homosexual" to "bad" or "lame", the reason why it is seen as bad or lame is because it is being associated with homosexuals. To say again, more simply: the adjective "gay" can be used to describe non-sexual things in a generic, negative way, but since that negativity is derived from the word's association with homosexuality, it is still very offensive.

Those silly homosexuals. If they just used some "common sense" and "logic," they'd know there is no such thing as gay-bashing.

Oh, yes exactly. You got it right on the money with those sweeping generalizations, I'm impressed.

We are addressing a single word here. Not the history of Gay Rights, or words such as "fag" which clearly have no other meaning in the United States.

Thanks, President Bush, for clearing that up.

It does because ****** means a black person when used. That's it.
Gay doesn't. Hence, incomparable examples.

******-knocking
******-rigged
He's a white ******.
Don't be a ******.
There's a ****** in the wood.

You'll find ****** has been used in ways directly comparable to "that's so gay."

You are arguing in irrelevant circles, and being overly specific. Let me try again, while being as clear as I possibly can:

In most high school settings, homosexuality is frowned upon. Being gay is a social stigma, and gay people are often mocked. Because of this, the word "gay" has a strong negative connotation. If one student calls another "gay", it is seen as an insult. The word is insulting because it associates the target with homosexuality and all of its social undesirability.

When used to describe an object, it becomes a generic insult. A phrase like "that test was so gay" does not mean that the test was homosexual, obviously. It simply associates the test with the undesirable qualities of a hated minority in order to disparage it. So, while the meaning of the word in this context has indeed shifted from "homosexual" to "bad" or "lame", the reason why it is seen as bad or lame is because it is being associated with homosexuals. To say again, more simply: the adjective "gay" can be used to describe non-sexual things in a generic, negative way, but since that negativity is derived from the word's association with homosexuality, it is still very offensive.


Perhaps where you're from that might be the case. However, it's not universal that gays in schools are always taunted, especially in high school. And in middle school when it happens, when people are called gay, it is indeed to imply homosexuality. However, there are many situations (most of which, actually) where this isn't the case. They have two obviously different meanings, and when people (including gays) use the word in the latter context they clearly separate the two. That's how I and everyone I know has always thought of it, regardless of their personal feelings on homosexuality, and regardless of whether or not they've used the term to accuse some of being gay. If a homophobe can clearly draw a distinction between a test being gay and a person being gay, I think we all can.

******-knocking
******-rigged
He's a white ******.
Don't be a ******.
There's a ****** in the wood.

You'll find ****** has been used in ways directly comparable to "that's so gay."

Actually no. All of those things refer DIRECTLY BACK to STEREOTYPES OF BLACK PEOPLE. Failed.

Oh, yes exactly. You got it right on the money with those sweeping generalizations, I'm impressed.

We are addressing a single word here. Not the history of Gay Rights, or words such as "fag" which clearly have no other meaning in the United States.

Thanks, President Bush, for clearing that up.

They were your sweeping generalizations. Glad to see you recognize how stupid they were.

The word is not divorced from it's history or from the current circumstances of gay people. They are socially stigmatized and discriminated against.

Thus, the use of the word "gay" to refer to something as stupid, undesirable, lame, etc. is derogatory. To argue otherwise is to be asinine.

1. Not true.
2. See #1.
3. No, but being "bad" or "undesirable" is. That is what the objection is too.

Regardless, the fact that you seem to have led a life free from hearing epiteths does not mean they do not exist.

You've failed to cite anything relevant so far. And actually, considering I'm from the south (which while not as racist as some might conclude, is definitely more so than the midwest, as I've lived in both places) it's surprising I've never heard certain terms uttered (maybe because they aren't used often?).

The lesson here should be: know your audience. :p

As most people have been correctly noting, the use of the word "gay" (among adolescents) has certainly transcended its use as an anti-homosexual slur. It's a catch-all term of disapproval for something, for better or worse. But it's still forseeable that someone might be offended, especially someone not likely to understand recent slang (teachers, administrators, older people etc.) or the thin-skinned. Those people are usually easy to spot, especially those who would run to an administrator straightaway, so I don't have much sympathy for the child here, but in general, and in my school days, I noticed a good deal of carelessness in language during classtime. Some discretion is needed - save it for the schoolyard.

Actually no. All of those things refer DIRECTLY BACK to STEREOTYPES OF BLACK PEOPLE. Failed.

Stereotypes like undesirable or flawed.

Gee, I wonder if being gay is ever considered undesirable or flawed.

Oh, snap.

They were your sweeping generalizations. Glad to see you recognize how stupid they were.

The word is not divorced from it's history or from the current circumstances of gay people. They are socially stigmatized and discriminated against.

Thus, the use of the word "gay" to refer to something as stupid, undesirable, lame, etc. is derogatory. To argue otherwise is to be asinine.

No one said that some people do discriminate against them. However, the point is, the word has developed its own context. It is not the same as using ****** or kike which obviously are only used to refer to racial stereotypes belonging to said races.

And no, you made the generalizations. Comparing using the word "gay" to denying the plight of gay people. What a disgusting tactic. Go ahead and question my patriotism because I don't support the war, Mr. Bush. Pathetic.

You can't compare the two.
I can and will.
No one uses the phrase "those filthy blacks" other than to berate blacks. That's self-explanatory.
No one uses the phrase "that's so gay" other than to stigmatize homosexuality. That's self-explanatory.

The fact of the matter is, you're using uncomparable and obvious words and phrases.
Wrong. "Those filthy blacks" as a generic, non-racist insult is comparable in terms of believability to "that's so gay" as a generic, non-homophobic insult.

When you say "blacks" you're obviously referring to black people. That's a noun. For a group of people. Just like if you say "The gay community" you're referring to homosexuals, not stupid people.
Exactly my point. The phrase "those filthy blacks" is offensive no matter how you try to explain it away, because, no matter how you try to redefine the word "black", it's obviously referring to African-Americans. Likewise, you can try to obfuscate the intentions behind the word "gay" as much as you'd like, but in the end it will not alter the fact that it obviously refers to homosexuals.

For you to insinuate something based on my nationstates name and/or presumed religion is wrong and insulting. It's a line that should not be crossed during any kind of debate.

However, for the record I will state that I have gay friends, I support gay marriage, and equal rights for gays in general. Not that I was obligated to share that with you.
I apologize for the assumption, but I must admit that I have not yet encountered a pro-gay Muslim, and frankly have a hard time believing that such a thing is anything but an oxymoron.

Stereotypes like undesirable or flawed.

Gee, I wonder if being gay is ever considered undesirable or flawed.

Oh, snap.

You had to do a lot of reaching for that. So obviously it's not comparable to those other words you used. It's simply true that most people who use the word simply don't bridge that gap that you're saying exists, even if perhaps there may have truth to it.

No one said that some people do discriminate against them. However, the point is, the word has developed its own context. It is not the same as using ****** or kike which obviously are only used to refer to racial stereotypes belonging to said races.

And no, you made the generalizations. Comparing using the word "gay" to denying the plight of gay people. What a disgusting tactic. Go ahead and question my patriotism because I don't support the war, Mr. Bush. Pathetic.

You doth protest too much, methinks.

No one said you were a homophobe. Merely an idiot.

frankly have a hard time believing that such a thing is anything but an oxymoron.

:rolleyes:

http://www.al-fatiha.org/

You had to do a lot of reaching for that. So obviously it's not comparable to those other words you used. It's simply true that most people who use the word simply don't bridge that gap that you're saying exists, even if perhaps there may have truth to it.

I did no reaching at all. I merely consulted the OED.

"A ****** in the wood" refers to a flaw in the wood.

"Don't be a ******" refers to an undesirable person.

If you are going to argue the dictionary, you should use one.

The lesson here should be: know your audience. :p

As most people have been correctly noting, the use of the word "gay" (among adolescents) has certainly transcended its use as an anti-homosexual slur. It's a catch-all term of disapproval for something, for better or worse. But it's still forseeable that someone might be offended, especially someone not likely to understand recent slang (teachers, administrators, older people etc.) or the thin-skinned. Those people are usually easy to spot, especially those who would run to an administrator straightaway, so I don't have much sympathy for the child here, but in general, and in my school days, I noticed a good deal of carelessness in language during classtime. Some discretion is needed - save it for the schoolyard.

The average kid may not think about it.

May not think, "I'm putting down gay people by equating gay with stupid".

But not thinking, is no excuse for perpetuating discrimination.

"I Jewed him down to twenty dollars". The speaker probably does not have Jewish people in mind at all...the person the speaker is talking to likely does not either.

No excuse.

"Dude, don't be such a retard." Is the speaker deliberately making fun of people with mental disabilities? Probably not.

No excuse.

If the negative nature of these terms are NOT brought to the attention of the people using them, will those terms ever be challenged?

I'm not sure a lot of dialogue happened in this case, and that's a shame, but there is no reason to try to justify the uses of these terms based on them being thoughtlessly used in common parlance. Because discussing them is a chance to discuss the underlying attitudes that created the negative term in the first place...and if critical thinking isn't a goal at school, then there is something going horribly wrong.

If a homophobe can clearly draw a distinction between a test being gay and a person being gay, I think we all can.
The only distinction between the two is whether A) A person is disparaged by being directly called a homosexual, or B) an object is disparaged by being associated with homosexuality. Both cases derive their negativity from homophobia.

As most people have been correctly noting, the use of the word "gay" (among adolescents) has certainly transcended its use as an anti-homosexual slur. It's a catch-all term of disapproval for something, for better or worse.
But why is that so? Why is it seen as a negative word?

I can and will.

No one uses the phrase "that's so gay" other than to stigmatize homosexuality. That's self-explanatory.


Wrong. "Those filthy blacks" as a generic, non-racist insult is comparable in terms of believability to "that's so gay" as a generic, non-homophobic insult.


Exactly my point. The phrase "those filthy blacks" is offensive no matter how you try to explain it away, because, no matter how you try to redefine the word "black", it's obviously referring to African-Americans. Likewise, you can try to obfuscate the intentions behind the word "gay" as much as you'd like, but in the end it will not alter the fact that it obviously refers to homosexuals.


I apologize for the assumption, but I must admit that I have not yet encountered a pro-gay Muslim, and frankly have a hard time believing that such a thing is anything but an oxymoron.

No one tries to redefine the word black, except perhaps as literary tools, and we're discussing common every day speech.

Most people who utter "That's so gay" do not do so to stigmatize homosexuality. If they did, gay people themselves wouldn't use it.

"Those filthy blacks" is not a generic insult, if it were, it would be known and most definitely discussed. Hence it is not relavent.

That's your own personal stereotype then. Deal with it.

I won't go so far as to say that it didn't come from that. Common sense shows it did. However, that is not its meaning in that context just as when you refer to the Gay Community you are not referring to just an extremely happy group of people. Common sense also shows that when people say "that test was so gay" that it doesn't refer to the test's sexuality. In fact, if you read any sort of article on the issue, they talk about how in young people the word has become, in the context the girl used it, precisely what I stated it had. You're denying fact otherwise. The only debate here is whether or not its appropriate to use the word to mean something unpleasant. I say it is because:

1. Most people who use it aren't referring to homosexuals when they say it in a disparaging way. They use words like "fag" instead if they are trying to be discriminatory towards homosexuals. Even according to dictionary.com, gay as used towards homosexuals has lost all negativity, LET ME REPEAT, WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE HOMOSEXUALS, both by themselves and the general public.
2. Homosexual is not the original meaning of "gay", so it's not unique to it.
3. The two variances have diverged to the point where, just as some words have double meanings, to the YOUNGEST of today's generation, they hear it used in different contexts and do not automatically associate the two.
4. Homosexual individuals themselves often use the word in it's negative context when referring to other things.

However, for you to try and say that people use the word in order to make fun or be rude towards homosexuals in terms of unpleasant things such as exams, punishments, and other unpleasant things when they clearly have nothing to do and share no traits with homosexuals or homosexuality is just plain idiotic, or even any stereotypes of homosexuals is just plain idiotic. It defies logic.


Bollocks. I feel like I'm watching a Twister tournament.

Bollocks. I feel like I'm watching a Twister tournament.

Bollocks....don't be offended if I assume you're from Britain or Ireland? If that is indeed the case, well language use differs from country to country, and what your situation is probably not ours.

If not, then you need to back your statements up with something other than just bollocks.

:rolleyes:

http://www.al-fatiha.org/
I never said that they didn't exist. I just think they're walking contradictions.

I may not be overtly familiar with the ins and outs of Islam, but I am aware that it, along with Christianity and Judaism, does not exactly approve of homosexuality. Most religious people I know that also accept homosexuality are usually very loose in their faith -- anyone who insists on sticking closely to their religious doctrine invariably comes out against homosexuals. At best, they think they are sinners that can be "cured", and at worst, they want them lynched.

Most people who utter "That's so gay" do not do so to stigmatize homosexuality. If they did, gay people themselves wouldn't use it.


While it's more than possible that some gay people say 'that's so gay' to refer to something stupid, it is NOT true that 'that is so gay' (meaning stupid) is the same as 'i'm gay' (meaning sexual orientation).

You might not mean to be a jerk, and deliberately insult an entire class of people by using a description of them to mean 'stupid'...but you're being an ass regardless of that lack of intent. A rational human being would be contrite upon realising that, and smarten the fuck up.

Since you're failing people, perhaps you'd like me to stick this big, red 'F' for your argument up your ass?

Bollocks....don't be offended if I assume you're from Britain or Ireland? If that is indeed the case, well language use differs from country to country, and what your situation is probably not ours.

If not, then you need to back your statements up with something other than just bollocks.

It doesn't matter where I'm from.

Bollocks.

I may not be overtly familiar with the ins and outs of Islam, but I am aware that it, along with Christianity and Judaism, does not exactly approve of homosexuality.

So would you say that Jews and Christians who are pro-gay are also "oxymorons" and "walking contradictions"?

And if you saw someone with a username that referenced Judaism or Christianity, would you assume that he or she was homophobic?

I never said that they didn't exist. I just think they're walking contradictions.

I may not be overtly familiar with the ins and outs of Islam, but I am aware that it, along with Christianity and Judaism, does not exactly approve of homosexuality. Most religious people I know that also accept homosexuality are usually very loose in their faith -- anyone who insists on sticking closely to their religious doctrine invariably comes out against homosexuals. At best, they think they are sinners that can be "cured", and at worst, they want them lynched.

Well, if that's what you observed that's what you observed I guess. However, when debating it's not appropriate to make an assumption on someone's opinion based on presumed religious beliefs, especially when they haven't even brought them into the picture. If I were to say "THEM HOMOS IS GOIN TO HELL" then by all means bring it up. I put it on the table then.

I think there's a difference between "that's so gay" and "you're such a fag!"
Both are hurtful to individuals to varying degrees. She just needs to learn how to be more sensitive to others. She, along with many other people in today's society, needs to learn how to stop using the word 'gay' in the wrong context.

In any case, this is a debate. There's no real reason to get worked up about it. At the end of the day, there are many liberal and open-minded people like myself who simply see no real problem with using the word. Maybe it shouldn't have ever been used in the first place, but its here to stay now (though perhaps it will go out of fashion, as do most slang terms eventually), and within its current context its not offensive to many, if not most people in general, and many, if not most, gay people. Maybe that will change, as things do sometimes. The word ****** didn't used to be held to be offensive for instance. And that's documented. It is now though. Things change, and often flip back and forth. However, to actively try to change a word that is used so often and is not used negatively towards a group of people (whether or not you agree with its origins) is basically overly analytical. If we deleted all words from the English language that may have originated as disparaging towards a group of people, but that are not currently used as such, we'd be getting rid of a lot of words I'm sure.

So would you say that Jews and Christians who are pro-gay are also "oxymorons" and "walking contradictions"?

And if you saw someone with a username that referenced Judaism or Christianity, would you assume that he or she was homophobic?
Honestly? Yes -- insofar as they claim to be traditional Christians or Jews. All religious people I know are religiously liberal -- they see the stories in the Bible as nonliteral metaphors, are accepting of things damned in the Bible, etc. I don't think it's possible to be a strict Christian, Muslim, or Jew and still accept homosexuality without contradicting oneself.

Also, I think I correctly judged Roma at first, given the circumstances. His name implied Muslim religious belief, and his profile indicated "Islam" as one of his interests. But those were peripheral. The most important thing to me was the fact that he persists in trying to defend an obviously homophobic statement as nothing of the sort, and very stubbornly so. I couldn't really see any reason why he would do so in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, so I assumed it was because his religion predisposed him to be homophobic from the start. I admit I was wrong in that, at least as far as Roma says, but I still think it was a legitimate judgment to make.

Yes -- insofar as they claim to be traditional Christians or Jews.

And that's a different claim entirely, and one that does not justify your assumption on the mere basis of "Islamica."

Honestly? Yes -- insofar as they claim to be traditional Christians or Jews. All religious people I know are religiously liberal -- they see the stories in the Bible as nonliteral metaphors, are accepting of things damned in the Bible, etc. I don't think it's possible to be a strict Christian, Muslim, or Jew and still accept homosexuality without contradicting oneself.

Also, I think I correctly judged Roma at first, given the circumstances. His name implied Muslim religious belief, and his profile indicated "Islam" as one of his interests. But those were peripheral. The most important thing to me was the fact that he persists in trying to defend an obviously homophobic statement as nothing of the sort, and very stubbornly so. I couldn't really see any reason why he would do so in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, so I assumed it was because his religion predisposed him to be homophobic from the start. I admit I was wrong in that, at least as far as Roma says, but I still think it was a legitimate judgment to make.

We all make private judgments based on contextual clues. However, to bring them up unless I explicitly said something during a debate is pretty underhanded thing to do. It's what sleezy politicans do. They say what they want and then say "oh by the way..." and end what they say with some kind of personal attack based on their opponent's lifestyle or supposed lifestyle. Just don't lower yourself to that level, that's all.

In any case, this is a debate. There's no real reason to get worked up about it. At the end of the day, there are many liberal and open-minded people like myself who simply see no real problem with using the word.

I ALWAYS get a kick out of people defending their right to say offensive things to and about other people, taking absolutley no responsibility for it, and then going on about how liberal and open-minded they are.

Truly. It slays me:)

I ALWAYS get a kick out of people defending their right to say offensive things to and about other people, taking absolutley no responsibility for it, and then going on about how liberal and open-minded they are.

Truly. It slays me:)

Your opinion. I never said anything offensive about anyone. I defended the use of the word, and gave my opinion. It's a debatable topic, and if you read my earlier posts, you'd know my stances. I'm pro-gay marriage and pro-gay rights.

So, why don't you read all the posts and educate yourself before saying anything? It just makes you look uninformed. Besides this is a debate thread, so please contribute something other than ridicule. Thanks.

I'm pro-gay marriage and pro-gay rights.

Lots of homophobes are.

I see no good reason to assume you are one, but the two are hardly mutually exclusive.

Lots of homophobes are.

I see no good reason to assume you are one, but the two are hardly mutually exclusive.

Yes, in some cases, I can see how that might be true.

I'm curious Soheran, what is your background if you don't mind answering?

Your opinion. I never said anything offensive about anyone. I defended the use of the word, and gave my opinion. It's a debatable topic, and if you read my earlier posts, you'd know my stances. I'm pro-gay marriage and pro-gay rights. Yes, and you're probably anti-slavery and maybe even have a black friend. That doesn't automatically mean you're not a racist.

So, why don't you read all the posts and educate yourself before saying anything? It just makes you look uninformed. Besides this is a debate thread, so please contribute something other than ridicule. Thanks.
I did read your posts and 'educated myself' on your position, so clearly reposted below:
In any case, this is a debate. There's no real reason to get worked up about it. At the end of the day, there are many liberal and open-minded people like myself who simply see no real problem with using the word.

You think using the word is okay. So this following comment is absolutely in line:

I ALWAYS get a kick out of people defending their right to say offensive things to and about other people, taking absolutley no responsibility for it, and then going on about how liberal and open-minded they are.

Truly. It slays me

This is a debate forum, beyotch. When you introduce your opinion, expect it to be DEBATED. AND RIDICULED when all you can do is say, 'well it's not offensive in my opinion, and if people get offended, oh well, not my fault because I'm so liberal and open-minded'.

I never said anything offensive about anyone. I defended the use of the word, and gave my opinion.

You do recognize, I'm sure, that the word means different things to different people, and that using it in the presence of a school official would probably qualify as boneheaded? Defending the word is fine - no word should be prohibited - but these kids should probably learn to moderate their language, especially as they're being groomed for the corporate world. It's more than knowing your audience, it's preparation for the future when educating children. The kids spoke innocently, sure, but that's no defense against using immodest language in the boardroom, and so should be censored in the classroom. There's some ultimate benefit in behavior modification here, clearly.

Yes, and you're probably anti-slavery and maybe even have a black friend. That doesn't automatically mean you're not a racist.

I did read your posts and 'educated myself' on your position, so clearly reposted below:


You think using the word is okay. So this following comment is absolutely in line:



This is a debate forum, beyotch. When you introduce your opinion, expect it to be DEBATED. AND RIDICULED when all you can do is say, 'well it's not offensive in my opinion, and if people get offended, oh well, not my fault because I'm so liberal and open-minded'.

That's not what I said. I said it's a debate, and yes, at the end of the day, many people use it. People who support gay rights, gay marriage, have gay friends and family members, and gay people themselves. That's why it's debatable. Not everyone holds the opinion that it's offensive, in fact many people do not.

The slavery thing is not comparable, so stop using false analogies. You're an idiot. Plain and simple. If you don't have a problem being rude, I don't have a problem calling you out for what you are. You're militantly ignorant, and you're as bad as the ultra-conservatives on the opposide side of the sanitarium.

You do recognize, I'm sure, that the word means different things to different people, and that using it in the presence of a school official would probably qualify as boneheaded? Defending the word is fine - no word should be prohibited - but these kids should probably learn to moderate their language, especially as they're being groomed for the corporate world. It's more than knowing your audience, it's preparation for the future when educating children. The kids spoke innocently, sure, but that's no defense against using immodest language in the boardroom, and so should be censored in the classroom. There's some ultimate benefit in behavior modification here, clearly.

I agree with basically everything you just said. We all use words that we wouldn't use in the corporate world or in formal educational settings. However, those words don't have to be generally offensive to all to be inappropriate for those settings. Forgive this admittedly poor analogy, but just as the corporate and educational worlds have their own modes of dress, dressing differently outside them can hardly be considered offensive. And that last bit wasn't really addressed to you, because you recognize that. It's addressed to people who might say "Well, if you wouldn't use it in every situation why should you use it all?" as some inevitably will....

That's not what I said. I said it's a debate, and yes, at the end of the day, many people use it. People who support gay rights, gay marriage, have gay friends and family members, and gay people themselves. That's why it's debatable. Not everyone holds the opinion that it's offensive, in fact many people do not.
That's not what you said? THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID? I quoted you DIRECTLY. That's EXACTLY what you said.

At least cover up your tracks if you're going to lie so outrageously.

Nonetheless many people DO find it offensive...and you believe it is okay, it is liberal and open-minded in fact, for people to continue to use a derogatory term equating gay with stupid. I question your self-proclaimed open-mindedness, when the minds you care about belong to people who ignore how offensive they are being in order to make some bizarre point, rather than the minds of the people who are themselves, being made to feel like shit because it's still okay to put down homosexuality.

How fucking enlightened of you. Truly.



The slavery thing is not comparable, so stop using false analogies.
Did you even read it? I said...I'm sure you are anti-slavery, and perhaps even have a black friend. These things do not automatically mean you are not a racist.

So you can be pro gay marriage, and have gay friends, and still be a homophobe.

Shall I spoonfeed you all my arguments in order to prevent you from falsely classifying them?


You're an idiot. Plain and simple. If you don't have a problem being rude, I don't have a problem calling you out for what you are. You're militantly ignorant, and you're as bad as the ultra-conservatives on the opposide side of the sanitarium.
See, at least now you're being honest about your douchebaggery, instead of cloaking it in 'liberal open-mindedness'.

I prefer assholes to be honest.

Yes, and you're probably anti-slavery and maybe even have a black friend. That doesn't automatically mean you're not a racist.

I did read your posts and 'educated myself' on your position, so clearly reposted below:


You think using the word is okay. So this following comment is absolutely in line:



This is a debate forum, beyotch. When you introduce your opinion, expect it to be DEBATED. AND RIDICULED when all you can do is say, 'well it's not offensive in my opinion, and if people get offended, oh well, not my fault because I'm so liberal and open-minded'.

Oh and actually, I just read the last part of what you wrote. I definitely gave tons of reasons why the word isn't considered offensive by most people and why it's different from other words that some people have compared it to. You haven't said a damn thing other than "you're stupid" and "wow you're so liberal aren't you?" and ridiculed while offering nothing in return. Good job debating, fucktard. And I have no problem calling you that because that's what you are. You show no regard for the process of debate, nor do you do anything BUT ridicule or contribute anything constructive.

That's not what you said? THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID? I quoted you DIRECTLY. That's EXACTLY what you said.

At least cover up your tracks if you're going to lie so outrageously.

Nonetheless many people DO find it offensive...and you believe it is okay, it is liberal and open-minded in fact, for people to continue to use a derogatory term equating gay with stupid. I question your self-proclaimed open-mindedness, when the minds in question belong to people who ignore how offensive they are being in order to make some bizarre point, rather than the minds of the people who are themselves, being made to feel like shit because it's still okay to put down homosexuality.

How fucking enlightened of you. Truly.


Did you even read it? I said...I'm sure you are anti-slavery, and perhaps even have a black friend. These things do not automatically mean you are not a racist.

So you can be pro gay marriage, and have gay friends, and still be a homophobe.

Shall I spoonfeed you all my arguments in order to prevent you from falsely classifying them?


See, at least now you're being honest about your douchebaggery, instead of cloaking it in 'liberal open-mindedness'.

I prefer assholes to be honest.


Your arguments don't work. Plain and simple. You say rude things. And that's all you do. As for the asshole comment, I'm sure you do. Because that's all you are you fucking prick.

If people find it offensive, fine. Because there's always SOMEONE who finds SOMETHING offensive. Maybe you should just stop talking, because I find that offensive. Wow, BURNED.

Nonetheless many people DO find it offensive...and you believe it is okay, it is liberal and open-minded in fact, for people to continue to use a derogatory term equating gay with stupid.

I am truly offended that you would equate the word "gay" with "homosexual". I mean, I am pretty damn gay, but it's wrong of you to assume my sexuality just because I'm happy. Damn.

And there's your lesson in word development.

But see, you assume words just "are" don't you? That they all have concrete meanings. Words change. Get over it.

At the end of the day, there are many liberal and open-minded people like myself who simply see no real problem with using the word.Oh yes?

This is the first thread I've ever seen on here that is still on topic after 38 pages and the only reason it is is because it's running in circles because people think closing their eyes to the obvious is making them be right.

The use of gay we're talking about is too recent and too slang to have found its way into etymological dictionaries, so how about we use common sense instead?

Gay in the last few decades meant one thing above all: homosexual

Since not quite so long ago, there is the version of "That's so gay!" that doesn't refer to something lame and stupid but to quintessentially stereotypical "gay" things - pink ruffled shirts, Barbra Streisand karaoke songs, flamboyant gesturing... any cliché in the book. If this version is derogatory or not depends solely on who's saying it and why they're saying it.

Unsurprisingly, many say it with the sole intent to be derogatory. And even less surprisingly, they opened it up to encompass not only the things actually related to (at least the cliché of) homosexuality but all other things equally despiccable.

And that is exactly the way what we're talking about here is used. It doesn't mean that everyone who uses it does so because they think homosexuality is despiccable but that doesn't change the fact that's what it implies and it certainly doesn't change the fact that's the impression it spreads.

Is anyone seriously honestly going to argue that when you're a kid growing up in an environment where "gay" is what you and your buddies call all things lame, stupid, idiotic or gross that is *not* going to affect your view of gay people or, God forbid, of being gay?

Seriously?

I ALWAYS get a kick out of people defending their right to say offensive things to and about other people, taking absolutley no responsibility for it, and then going on about how liberal and open-minded they are.

Truly. It slays me:)
Yes, liberal people do tend to be in favour of free speech, in general.

Your arguments don't work. Plain and simple. You say rude things. And that's all you do. As for the asshole comment, I'm sure you do. Because that's all you are you fucking prick.

If people find it offensive, fine. Because there's always SOMEONE who finds SOMETHING offensive. Maybe you should just stop talking, because I find that offensive. Wow, BURNED.

Hahahaha, there is a difference. I'm not trying to tell you that I'm not being offensive, and that it's all on you for being offended. I'm taking responsibility for my offensiveness. And that, my enlightened friend, is exactly what you are trying to wiggle out of.

This is not a situation where people are getting offended at something out of the blue. This has a long-standing history, and the concerns raised against this term being simply acceptable are valid.

You believe it is more open minded to refuse to give validity to the real concerns of others to whom equating gay to stupid is extremely offensive, and harmful especially in the context of schools where, for the most part, homosexuality is STILL something kids can be harrassed about, made to feel to feel inferior and wrong.

You believe that while sure, it might offend some people (generally those to which the term broadly applies, but let's forget that) but that it's more LIBERAL to let them suffer in the name of your freedom to be a douchebag.

THAT is not liberal, or open-minded at all, no matter how hard you want to paint it as such. That is as socially conservative and irresponsible, as the kind of people who don't want to stop telling racist or sexist jokes in the workplace on the premise that, 'well lot's of people don't think it's offensive'.

You need to weigh the following:

1) the benefit to using a word that is highly offensive to some, moderately offensive to others, slightly offensive to still others...and devoid of offensive meaning to a few.

with

2) the harm that deliberately being offensive (in the name of open mindedness) causes.

Don't be so open-minded that you brain falls right out. As a human being, you have the capacity (and hopefully the desire) to not deliberately inflict emotional pain on other human beings for no good reason.

And 'well some people don't mind' is no good reason to ignore the many more that do.

Yes, liberal people do tend to be in favour of free speech, in general.

Weird...because when it comes to language, the 'open-minded' and 'liberal' tend to want to deal with inherent sexism, heterosexism, and racism in language use. Social conservatives want to continue to use these terms, regardless of how offensive they are, and justify themselves by pretending that no one should be offended in the first place.

****** is not everyday parlance among white people.

Who caused that to happen?

Liberals and open-minded people.

We do not refer to the mentally disabled as retards any more, unless we are assholes.

Who caused that to happen?

Liberals and open-minded people.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept that liberals and open-minded people are the ones struggling to hold onto discriminatory language.

This isn't an issue of free speech, sans responsibility. Yes, we let Fred Phelps say all sorts of horrible things...that's a liberal, and open-minded thing to do....but we recognised his speech for what it is. Disgusting, and offensive. We don't sugar coat it, and say, 'it's okay, keep saying that." We exercise our free speech in return, and blast him for his bigotry.

And that's what people are doing when they are trying to change the way that people use 'gay' to mean 'stupid or wrong' in the context of 'that's so gay'. Blasting bigotry that is so ingrained, it's just common slang hardly anyone thinks about.

That's how it all starts. And THAT is liberal and open-minded.

I know there's the issue of accepting it's offensive. I'm not going to join this debate, it looks unpleasant. I just thought the wording of your post seemed rather off, defending their right to say offensive things to and about other people sounding more like a free speech thing, that's all.

I'm not going to join this debate, it looks unpleasant.:p
Describing 90% of NSG in 10 words.

:p
Describing 90% of NSG in 10 words.
And the other 10% is "This looks unpleasant, but I'll join it anyway." :p

I think there's a difference between "that's so gay" and "you're such a fag!"
Both are hurtful to individuals to varying degrees. She just needs to learn how to be more sensitive to others. She, along with many other people in today's society, needs to learn how to stop using the word 'gay' in the wrong context.

*claps*

The thing is, there DOES need to be Hate laws in place. Because just because we have freedom of speech, its not there for you to use to hurt others, because that would be infringing on their rights too. The phrase "that is so gay" is so sad of a use. Why use it? I dont understand why you ahve to. Does this mean that those that use this have no vocabulary? Most likely. Sad thing is, these students were probably trying to get attention and push peoples buttons.

You do recognize, I'm sure, that the word means different things to different people, and that using it in the presence of a school official would probably qualify as boneheaded? Defending the word is fine - no word should be prohibited - but these kids should probably learn to moderate their language, especially as they're being groomed for the corporate world. It's more than knowing your audience, it's preparation for the future when educating children. The kids spoke innocently, sure, but that's no defense against using immodest language in the boardroom, and so should be censored in the classroom. There's some ultimate benefit in behavior modification here, clearly.

Exactly. Thank you.

I've been trying to say this all along.

I agree with basically everything you just said. We all use words that we wouldn't use in the corporate world or in formal educational settings. However, those words don't have to be generally offensive to all to be inappropriate for those settings. Forgive this admittedly poor analogy, but just as the corporate and educational worlds have their own modes of dress, dressing differently outside them can hardly be considered offensive. And that last bit wasn't really addressed to you, because you recognize that. It's addressed to people who might say "Well, if you wouldn't use it in every situation why should you use it all?" as some inevitably will....


WTF?

Have you not been paying attention to what the debate is about. The question since the OP has been whether this girl should have been disciplined for using the phrase IN A SCHOOL SETTING. She was warned BY THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL and her parents are suing, saying she shouldn't even have been warned the language was inappropriate.

I've gone to great lengths to explain how the school setting is different than a general question of free speech. I cited Supreme Court cases to that effect.

So I can only conclude you didn't read the thread or pay attention to the context. You were too busy trying to be clever with etymology to pay attention to the WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THE DEBATE.

Hahahaha, there is a difference. I'm not trying to tell you that I'm not being offensive, and that it's all on you for being offended. I'm taking responsibility for my offensiveness. And that, my enlightened friend, is exactly what you are trying to wiggle out of.

This is not a situation where people are getting offended at something out of the blue. This has a long-standing history, and the concerns raised against this term being simply acceptable are valid.

You believe it is more open minded to refuse to give validity to the real concerns of others to whom equating gay to stupid is extremely offensive, and harmful especially in the context of schools where, for the most part, homosexuality is STILL something kids can be harrassed about, made to feel to feel inferior and wrong.

You believe that while sure, it might offend some people (generally those to which the term broadly applies, but let's forget that) but that it's more LIBERAL to let them suffer in the name of your freedom to be a douchebag.

THAT is not liberal, or open-minded at all, no matter how hard you want to paint it as such. That is as socially conservative and irresponsible, as the kind of people who don't want to stop telling racist or sexist jokes in the workplace on the premise that, 'well lot's of people don't think it's offensive'.

You need to weigh the following:

1) the benefit to using a word that is highly offensive to some, moderately offensive to others, slightly offensive to still others...and devoid of offensive meaning to a few.

with

2) the harm that deliberately being offensive (in the name of open mindedness) causes.

Don't be so open-minded that you brain falls right out. As a human being, you have the capacity (and hopefully the desire) to not deliberately inflict emotional pain on other human beings for no good reason.

And 'well some people don't mind' is no good reason to ignore the many more that do.

Bravo.

As I stepped away from the debate I was thinking that only an asshat would continue to use a phrase where he/she knew the phrase was offensive and hurtful.

So what if it is possible to see the phrase as not offensive. You know it hurts some people. Thus, you use other words in your vocabulary.

Especially, as Roma seems to have missed, you are talking about a school setting.

Bravo.

As I stepped away from the debate I was thinking that only an asshat would continue to use a phrase where he/she knew the phrase was offensive and hurtful.

So what if it is possible to see the phrase as not offensive. You know it hurts some people. Thus, you use other words in your vocabulary.

Especially, as Roma seems to have missed, you are talking about a school setting.
Pretty much.

I mean, really-I actually used to use it all the time (for me it was to refer to things that were overly affectatious (sorry, for some reason my googletoolbar is gone, which is a better spell checker than Firefox) or showy in a silly way) and honestly in my head didn't make the connection, you know, until I did. And while I do 'miss' the word I'm not so self absorbed or that much of a dick or really that lacking in command of the language to not use something else in its place that doesn't shame gayness or make me look like a complete asshole.

*claps*

The thing is, there DOES need to be Hate laws in place. Because just because we have freedom of speech, its not there for you to use to hurt others, because that would be infringing on their rights too. The phrase "that is so gay" is so sad of a use. Why use it? I dont understand why you ahve to. Does this mean that those that use this have no vocabulary? Most likely. Sad thing is, these students were probably trying to get attention and push peoples buttons.

If we "have" freedom of speech, then what good is it if we can't use because of "hate" speech laws? One of the consequences of having the freedom to say what you wish is that some people will be offended, and you may be offended by what some people say. It doesn't matter if it's an immature outburst such as "that's gay", or a certain political opinion, or even differing musical tastes.

Hate speech laws only serve to quell debate on controversial topics because of fears of racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, etc. They are well-intentioned, but they are more detrimental to freedom of speech than the most severe dictatorial restrictions. A tyranny imposed on one by a dictator may alleviate from time to time, but a tyranny based on good intentions will never lapse, because those who execute it are of full peace of mind.

i think your post makes shx's point. for those kids calling something "gay" is no more about homosexuality than calling another kid a "bastard" means that they know the circumstances of the child's birth. bastard is an excellent example of the changing meaning of words. as is "gay".

But, again, bastard has effectively LOST its original connotation because the attitude toward illegitimacy as a concept have relaxed or fallen away. When the general attitude against homosexuals relaxes and/or falls away, then I'll be delighted to consider the use of "that's so gay" as a harmless use of an archaic term. Until then, it isn't and you know it isn't.

the meanings of words and phrases change. gay hasnt meant homosexual for very long. now its migrated so that the phrase "thats so gay" is interchangeable with "thats so lame". thats what language DOES. no one is implying anything about the sexuality of whatever is "so gay". the meaning has migrated just as the meaning of dozens of other words have.

gay kids have much more to worry about than their word being taken over by another meaning.

Not for very long? Are you high?


USAGE: Gay meaning 'homosexual' dating back to the 1930s (if not earlier), became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves.


You're honestly telling me that going on 50 years isn't long enough? In a culture that now includes the INTERNET?!? And that's just 50 years out of the closet (so to speak) for that word.

Holy cow -- your last sentence (bolded) makes my point for me! Yes! They have to worry about getting beaten up! Guess what? That means the word is still connected. Willfully staring at that fact while trying to tell me that the word isn't being used pejoratively is an insult to reason.

The meaning of the word has not migrated. It's slang usage has appeared. The slang "green" for "money" is/was in use because -- wait for it -- US money is colored green. The antihomo culture has adopted "gay" for "lame" because that's exactly what they believe.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT -- and this is the point I'm trying to make -- IT DOESN'T MATTER. Using that phrase makes you complicit in the marginalization of an entire segment of humanity. And y'know what? That's wrong. Being thoughtless with language is no big deal when you're only making a fool of yourself. But parroting what some bigoted bunch likes to say because it's "in" makes you worse than the bigots. The bigots at least have their upbringing and indoctrination as an excuse. The neutral-on-bigotry but thoughtless speaker has no excuse.

I would agree with all of these except on a point in the "that's so gay" being insulting part. It is more ignorance of people than any conscious attempt to insult homosexuals. People say "that's so gay" a lot and mostly they don't have gays on their minds at all. It is just like my "I've been gypped" example, people say it and they are hardly thinking of gypsies when they say it. If anything we need to educate people as to what various phrases can also mean so there are no misunderstandings. I do agree though that it is insulting to gays, yes, even if the insult was unintended. Though I still think the school went to far.

I also want to enforce a standard of not insulting religion while we are at it since people seem to ignore the fact that those classmates insulted this girl for being Mormon and the school said nothing. There should be just as much outrage for that on this thread as her comment has received.

That's because your "gypped" example is completely inaccurate. I'd be willing to wager that most people who still use "gypped" can't spell it. Why? Because they don't know its origin as a slur against gypsies. Moreover, the word refers to ANY group of nomadic people amongst a group of non-nomadic people, regardless of their ethnic extraction. Crack open a dictionary or otherwise look the word up.

Calling something "gay" is hate speech now?

Jeebus, I can't go 5 seconds without hearing that in my town.

Roma Islamica, I think it's only fair to warn you you're tangling with Neesika, the nation formerly known as Sinuhue. As in Dark Sinuhue.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/darksin01.jpg

(See, Neese? I'm pokey, but I get around to it eventually...)

I said plainly that it is insulting but that people blurt it out without thinking, no malice intended. It is still wrong but I am not going to jump on such people for not thinking. Telling them "hey, don't say that its insulting to homosexuals" should be enough without any reprimands needed.

I must say though, your accusing me of trolling for not agreeing with the herd (wrong in this case) is hardly going to get me to change my mind on a topic. Though it is mildly irritating.

Uh...isn't that what a reprimand is?

I don't recall the "mildly" part, I'm sure for those who would be offended to begin with, whether there was intent to insult or not, would find it just as offensive.

But for the person who says it with no foul intent is someone who I am not going to criticize too severely. If they are corrected again and again but keep it up that would change but until then... I see a difference, ok? Since there is no proof the girl intended to insult homosexuals I'm not going to look down on her as much as I would a true bigot.

I can't believe I have to say this, but if you're gay and you hear someone using the phrase "that's so gay" to describe something stupid or undesireable, how are you going to react? How will you feel?

Will it matter to you that the person uttering the phrase didn't "intend" to insult you? Not no, but hell no.

man I said that in front of a gay guy. He didn't pop me in the mouth... saying this is gay is not hate speech it's just regular speech. Otherwise better put me and like 90% of my buddies in jail. That's how we do er out west.

So let me get this straight. Because the "gay guy" you said that in front of maintained his civility where you did not and didn't react like a barbarian and hit you means that it's okay? So I can use "gook" as a slur in front of SE Asians if none of them assault me?

It isn't regular speech "pardner", it's thoughtless.

Irrelevant. For one, I've never heard ANY of those words uttered. And if they had been, it would be referring to stereotypical things those respective people supposedly do. Gay just means something generally displeasing, annoying, etc. and has developed separately of homosexual, and once again, gay itself is not the original meaning of the word. It would be different if someone said "that's so homosexual".

Developed separately? While the current (and 80-year-old) context is still not just widespread but bleeding UBIQUITOUS? I won't insult your intelligence, sir, but holy crap, do I feel like it.

Jew is the name of a group of people. It has no other meaning. And once again, there is a difference in that the word "jewing" (which btw, I've never heard used, so please find more common everyday examples to which you can compare) is associating a negative racial stereotype with the word. There is no stereotype that associates homosexual individuals with being stupid. I pointed that out previously in that other words such as "niggerish" and "kikey" (once, haven't heard used as adjectives before) would obviously imply negative stereotypes because:

1. Those words have only ever had one real definition, at least in the United States
2. Gay hasn't.
3. Even if gay did in fact only mean homosexual, once again, stupidity or lameness has never been a stereotype of homosexuals or the homosexual community in general.

You need to find a comparable example.

And you need to understand that your having never heard something doesn't magically make it cease to exist. Not that it matters, but I've heard all three of those words you haven't. I have a feeling that won't satisfy you, but I figured I'd give it a shot for the sake of...well...I don't really know. Reason?

Oh and actually, I just read the last part of what you wrote. I definitely gave tons of reasons why the word isn't considered offensive by most people and why it's different from other words that some people have compared it to. You haven't said a damn thing other than "you're stupid" and "wow you're so liberal aren't you?" and ridiculed while offering nothing in return. Good job debating, fucktard. And I have no problem calling you that because that's what you are. You show no regard for the process of debate, nor do you do anything BUT ridicule or contribute anything constructive.

Tons of reasons? Tons? One. And a leaky vessel it was, at that.

I am truly offended that you would equate the word "gay" with "homosexual". I mean, I am pretty damn gay, but it's wrong of you to assume my sexuality just because I'm happy. Damn.

And there's your lesson in word development.

But see, you assume words just "are" don't you? That they all have concrete meanings. Words change. Get over it.

Okay, now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

"Gay" as "happy" hasn't been in common use since they stopped writing the Great American Songbook at the end of George Gershwin's time as a composer. Please read a dictionary. The current context of the word is CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY synonymous with homosexual. To demand we all accept that it's still -- in ANY way -- in use to mean "happy" except when someone does a new arrangement of the songs "I'll Be Seeing You" or "She Was Too Good to Me", is just plain dense.

And the thing is, I believe that you know that's true. That's why you're getting such purple prose from Neesika (who is female, incidentally, so the whole "prick" tack you're taking needs to be adjusted), you're being willfully and obdurately ignorant, and frankly, it's getting old.

See? And I summed it all up in one word.

What Intangelon said. All that. Roma Islamica, these people were kind enough to take the time to respond to you at length. If I didn't, it's because I couldn't be bothered - persuaded as I was that it would, in the end, prove a fruitless endeavour.

Roma Islamica, I think it's only fair to warn you you're tangling with Neesika, the nation formerly known as Sinuhue. As in Dark Sinuhue.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/darksin01.jpg

(See, Neese? I'm pokey, but I get around to it eventually...)

*crows in absolute delight*

Dobbs, this is just so fantastic, I can hardly stand it. Kinana'skomitin!

If we "have" freedom of speech, then what good is it if we can't use because of "hate" speech laws? One of the consequences of having the freedom to say what you wish is that some people will be offended, and you may be offended by what some people say. It doesn't matter if it's an immature outburst such as "that's gay", or a certain political opinion, or even differing musical tastes.

Hate speech laws only serve to quell debate on controversial topics because of fears of racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, etc. They are well-intentioned, but they are more detrimental to freedom of speech than the most severe dictatorial restrictions. A tyranny imposed on one by a dictator may alleviate from time to time, but a tyranny based on good intentions will never lapse, because those who execute it are of full peace of mind.

But then again there is more to these laws then the homosexual problem. Also words can be just as harmful as physical damage too. My point is, those laws are there to protect your freedom to speak. So you think it is ok, for a white man or black man to walk up to the opposite and say some nasty things to their fast and threaten them? ALSO these laws dont just cover verbal hate...but physical hate too.

It's hate speech because juveniles equate gay with something negative... and are quite happy to call each other faggots as an insult as well.

Why don't they just say, "That's so stupid!"

It's hate speech because juveniles equate gay with something negative... and are quite happy to call each other faggots as an insult as well.

Why don't they just say, "That's so stupid!"

Because that is oh so old fashion :D

Because that is oh so old fashion :D

How bout "That's so CAVEMAN"? ;)

How bout "That's so CAVEMAN"? ;)
http://yaoyaoknow.podomatic.com/2006-08-08T11_04_25-07_00.jpg

Caveman is not amused.

That's so gay.


Sorry, sorry, someone was bound to, I'll get my coat.
Heck i would have said it...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/

I'm not exactly sure what to think of this yet. Is this a hate speech issue?
Apart from one people actually meant that's so happy, calling something gay has always been intended or at least offensive, although some might not mind the use of the word or declare it as common-speak, something being gay is gay.
In regards to hate crimes, hate crimes are dumb in practice and in theory.

http://yaoyaoknow.podomatic.com/2006-08-08T11_04_25-07_00.jpg

Caveman is not amused.
In Soviet Russia, he is!

In Soviet Russia, he is!

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1272112/article_images/headline_1172901860.jpg

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, CAVEMAN IS AMUSED!

(I know it doesn't work like that -- I just wanted an excuse to use that photo. :P)

I love those commercials....:D

It's hate speech because juveniles equate gay with something negative... and are quite happy to call each other faggots as an insult as well.

Why don't they just say, "That's so stupid!"
When I was in junior high, the "faggot" thing got so out of hand that it was downright hilarious. You'd have guys calling each other "faggots" ALL THE TIME.

Like, some guys are walking down the hall and see a kid they don't like, and they go, "Man, look at them shoes he's got on. Shoe-wearing faggot."

Or in the caff: "Why you gotta be drinking juice like that? Juice-drinking faggot."

Or in study hall: "Your pencil is so gay. Bright faggot yellow. You're a faggot, pencil-boy."

Mind you, most of the time the guys throwing around "faggot" were also wearing shoes, drinking juice, or writing with pencils at the time. But they didn't seem to let that bother them.

That's so gay. I bet like 50 ppl beat me to it? Yep possibly so. mhmm well it is gay isn't it, ppl in my school are think tho. THey still take it literally. SIGH

When I was in junior high, the "faggot" thing got so out of hand that it was downright hilarious. You'd have guys calling each other "faggots" ALL THE TIME.

Like, some guys are walking down the hall and see a kid they don't like, and they go, "Man, look at them shoes he's got on. Shoe-wearing faggot."

Or in the caff: "Why you gotta be drinking juice like that? Juice-drinking faggot."

Or in study hall: "Your pencil is so gay. Bright faggot yellow. You're a faggot, pencil-boy."

Mind you, most of the time the guys throwing around "faggot" were also wearing shoes, drinking juice, or writing with pencils at the time. But they didn't seem to let that bother them.

I can't help but cringe everytime I see or hear the word "faggot" being used. I have extremely negative conotations to that word - it would be the first word to pop into my head if someone asked me about hate speech and bigotry... particularly the violent kind :(

*Shivers*

I have no problems with people of any race, any sex or any religion. I do have a problem with gays. I don't associate with them, i will use gay as a general insult because i believe it is. As long as gays stay out of my way i don't mind. I also don't mind the gays that you can't tell are gays. The gays that act normal are fine.

I have no problems with people of any race, any sex or any religion. I do have a problem with gays. I don't associate with them, i will use gay as a general insult because i believe it is. As long as gays stay out of my way i don't mind. I also don't mind the gays that you can't tell are gays. The gays that act normal are fine.

... and from the "Name your favorite General" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12394056#post12394056) thread:

George W. Bush, the greatest tactician and military mind the world has ever seen.

Kiss all pretense of credibility goodbye. Troll.

The gays that act normal are fine.

Wait, the gays that act gay normal or the gays that act normal non-gay normal?

Wrong. Intangelon's point was that those words cannot really be considered insulting to their original victims anymore because the social situation has changed, and a word that once referred to a shameful quality is now a generic insult.

This does not apply to homosexuality. Across the country, there is still widespread discrimination against gays. Why do you think the Republicans love to bash them so often? It scores political points with a very large demographic. Homosexuality is still in many places socially unacceptable.

This attitude easily carries over to the schools. Many students are exposed to a family, faith, and culture that tells them that homosexuality is undesirable. They're petty, and insecure in their own sexuality, so to reaffirm their "straightness" and distance themselves from an "undesirable" minority they use the word describing that minority as an insult. That insult may be used to describe things that have nothing to do with the original minority, but the word itself is still grounded in intolerance and bigotry. It's in the same category as "******-rig", "jew down", or "Indian giver". It's meaning may have been broadened, but it is still very offensive.


I live in Mass. and when i went to High school it wasn't acceptable (7 years ago). So if most of us don't like them here how is it going to be in other parts of the U.S.

Wait, the gays that act gay normal or the gays that act normal non-gay normal?

The gays that don't act like women. The gays that you couldn't tell are gay by having a 1 minute conversation with.

@Rhaomi: Yeah because i'm George W. Bush's greatest fan... in case you didn't notice the sarcasm, because anyone that ever says anything like that about the President is either being sarcastic or has never heard of the Iraq war or Afghanistan war.

I don't support Bush, i didn't vote for Bush in 2000, i'm a democrat.

@Rhaomi: Yeah because i'm George W. Bush's greatest fan... in case you didn't notice the sarcasm, because anyone that ever says anything like that about the President is either being sarcastic or has never heard of the Iraq war or Afghanistan war.

I don't support Bush, i didn't vote for Bush in 2000, i'm a democrat.
Then frankly I'm ashamed to have you in my party, re: your intolerant, petty, and hypocritical comments concerning gays versus other minorities.

I have no problems with people of any race, any sex or any religion. I do have a problem with gays. I don't associate with them, i will use gay as a general insult because i believe it is. As long as gays stay out of my way i don't mind. I also don't mind the gays that you can't tell are gays. The gays that act normal are fine.

I love how people with bigoted views always start out by trying to explain how they are not a bigot

I love how people with bigoted views always start out by trying to explain how they are not a bigot

Yup, personal favourite of mine as well.

Honestly people really need to grow a spine and get over all this political correctness bullsh*t. I think once its gotten to the point to where people need to go into rehab just because they said "faggot" or whatever is just ridiculous. The facts are that you cant please everyone all the time and there'll always be somebody who dosent like something, the only thing you can do is grow up and stop acting like a child and whinning everytime somebody says a word that might be offensive to someone. The next time someone calls me a cracker, lets see if they take that seriously if i claim that its offensive. All im saying is, "People, grow a spine."

The facts are that you cant please everyone all the time and there'll always be somebody who dosent like something, the only thing you can do is grow up and stop acting like a child and whinning everytime somebody says a word that might be offensive to someone.
...or you could institute policies in school that promote a healthy learning environment, and hopefully encourage students to treat other people with dignity and respect.

Honestly, enough with all this strawman BS. The school had a policy against racial, sexist, religious, and homophobic slurs, as any good school should, and enforced it. That's all this is.

Ugh, will this thread never end? Or can we not, somehow, force everyone who wants to pop in to READ THE FUCKING THREAD before rehashing shit we've already dealt with?

Oh, that never happens.

NSG Rule #666-785: After the 15th page, 90% of the posts are rehash.

Ugh, will this thread never end?

No, it won't. Welcome to the NSG equivalent of the Ninth Circle of Hell.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/images/hell.gif

EDIT: Apparently, the damn timewarps won't end either. :mad:

Ugh, will this thread never end? Or can we not, somehow, force everyone who wants to pop in to READ THE FUCKING THREAD before rehashing shit we've already dealt with?

EDIT: Apparently, the damn timewarps won't end either. :mad:

Nope, they won't.

Part of it.

Then frankly I'm ashamed to have you in my party, re: your intolerant, petty, and hypocritical comments concerning gays versus other minorities.

How are blacks, asians or any other racial minority the same as gays. Hating people based on races is disgusting and makes no sense, but with gays it different, if they don't act gay i won't hate them.

I love how people with bigoted views always start out by trying to explain how they are not a bigot

Now THATS gay.

How are blacks, asians or any other racial minority the same as gays. Hating people based on races is disgusting and makes no sense, but with gays it different
Why?

if they don't act gay i won't hate them.
"If they don't act black, I won't hate them."

"If they don't act Hispanic, I won't hate them."

"If they don't act Japanese, I won't hate them."

&c.

How are blacks, asians or any other racial minority the same as gays. Hating people based on races is disgusting and makes no sense, but with gays it different, if they don't act gay i won't hate them.

This has to be one of the dumbest lines i have heard on this forum in a long time, other then Byzantium2006 saying:

Honestly people really need to grow a spine and get over all this political correctness bullsh*t.

Grow a spine? What kind of garbage is this? So a black person should grow a spine when he is called "boy" or the "N" word? (cant even say this word it makes me sick) I find it sicken and sad that we still have thoughts like this coming out of your mouth and ones like the otehr poster i am talking about above.



Now THATS gay.[/QUOTE]

As the resident bisexual (who is currently in a hetero relationship though):

That's just so freaking gay.

Wait, the gays that act gay normal or the gays that act normal non-gay normal?And what with all the non-gays who act gay? Are they normal?

Honestly people really need to grow a spine and get over all this political correctness bullsh*t. I think once its gotten to the point to where people need to go into rehab just because they said "faggot" or whatever is just ridiculous. The facts are that you cant please everyone all the time and there'll always be somebody who dosent like something, the only thing you can do is grow up and stop acting like a child and whinning everytime somebody says a word that might be offensive to someone. The next time someone calls me a cracker, lets see if they take that seriously if i claim that its offensive. All im saying is, "People, grow a spine."That's so mormon... :rolleyes:

Honestly people really need to grow a spine and get over all this political correctness bullsh*t. I think once its gotten to the point to where people need to go into rehab just because they said "faggot" or whatever is just ridiculous. The facts are that you cant please everyone all the time and there'll always be somebody who dosent like something, the only thing you can do is grow up and stop acting like a child and whinning everytime somebody says a word that might be offensive to someone. The next time someone calls me a cracker, lets see if they take that seriously if i claim that its offensive. All im saying is, "People, grow a spine."
Talk about childish whining.

I hate to break it to the school-yard bullies and other gay-baiting brats out there, but the whole reason people don't put up with your slurs and taunts is BECAUSE they have grown spines.

When you talk out your ass, they call you on it. I know you would prefer to be able to say whatever you like without any consequences at all, but here in the adult world things just don't work that way. If you toss around juvenile homophobic slurs, grown-ups are going to point out that you're acting like an ignorant little shit.

The people who need to grow up are the childish punks who still get off on using shock words to get attention. The people who need to grow up are the ones who still hang on to their school-yard cootie paranoia. The people who need to grow spines are the big strong manly conservative he-men who burst into tears when evil nasty adults call them out for their crappy behavior.

Talk about childish whining.

I hate to break it to the school-yard bullies and other gay-baiting brats out there, but the whole reason people don't put up with your slurs and taunts is BECAUSE they have grown spines.

When you talk out your ass, they call you on it. I know you would prefer to be able to say whatever you like without any consequences at all, but here in the adult world things just don't work that way. If you toss around juvenile homophobic slurs, grown-ups are going to point out that you're acting like an ignorant little shit.

The people who need to grow up are the childish punks who still get off on using shock words to get attention. The people who need to grow up are the ones who still hang on to their school-yard cootie paranoia. The people who need to grow spines are the big strong manly conservative he-men who burst into tears when evil nasty adults call them out for their crappy behavior.

Nice. I couldnt of put it more nicely and more organized. Damn....:headbang: :D

Nice. I couldnt of put it more nicely and more organized. Damn....:headbang: :D
Well thankee kindly. :D

"If they don't act black, I won't hate them."

"If they don't act Hispanic, I won't hate them."

"If they don't act Japanese, I won't hate them."

&c.Of course, that may all just come down to:
"If they don't act stereotypically, I won't hate them."

Of course, that may all just come down to:
"If they don't act stereotypically, I won't hate them."
Nah, it's just:

"As long as nobody threatens my tender little feelings, I won't throw a tantrum."

That's all it is. Some people have the audacity to think that they get to walk around being black or being gay, as if they had the right or something!!!! And there are scared white hetero boys who are enraged and insulted by the fact that non-white, non-hetero boys exist in the world! DAMN THEM for failing to sufficiently hide their non-whiteness and non-heterosexuality!!

Nah, it's just:

"As long as nobody threatens my tender little feelings, I won't throw a tantrum."

That's all it is. Some people have the audacity to think that they get to walk around being black or being gay, as if they had the right or something!!!! And there are scared white hetero boys who are enraged and insulted by the fact that non-white, non-hetero boys exist in the world! DAMN THEM for failing to sufficiently hide their non-whiteness and non-heterosexuality!!

I've seen plenty of homosexuals whose feelings are hurt when heteros do something as simple as dance together.

I've seen the hate go both ways - it's a product of human nature to hate people who are not like your group.

I've seen plenty of homosexuals whose feelings are hurt when heteros do something as simple as dance together.

I've seen the hate go both ways - it's a product of human nature to hate people who are not like your group.
I don't know if the two examples are actually good parallels.

When I was in a gay relationship, I often deeply resented how heterosexuals could hold hands or kiss or dance together in public without having to deal with constant stares and harassment. My anger wasn't at the heterosexuals for being heterosexual, it was for the completely unjustified perks they enjoyed, and which were denied to me and my partner. That's quite different than the cases where heteroboys scream "faggot!!" and get the vapors over a gay couple holding hands.

I have to share this line from The Sarah Silverman Show.

She was hanging out with her gay friends and called someone else a fag. Then she said, "Oh I'm sorry guys I didn't mean in the gay way I meant like retarded."

I have to share this line from The Sarah Silverman Show.

She was hanging out with her gay friends and called someone else a fag. Then she said, "Oh I'm sorry guys I didn't mean in the gay way I meant like retarded."
One of my college buddies was fond of using "oh man, that's so totally straight" as an insult. Instead of calling somebody a "homo," he'd call them a "hetero." Brainless twits would always feel the need to say, "It's not insulting to call somebody straight!!"

One of my college buddies was fond of using "oh man, that's so totally straight" as an insult. Instead of calling somebody a "homo," he'd call them a "hetero." Brainless twits would always feel the need to say, "It's not insulting to call somebody straight!!"

Twice the humour with only one joke!

I don't know if the two examples are actually good parallels.

When I was in a gay relationship, I often deeply resented how heterosexuals could hold hands or kiss or dance together in public without having to deal with constant stares and harassment. My anger wasn't at the heterosexuals for being heterosexual, it was for the completely unjustified perks they enjoyed, and which were denied to me and my partner. That's quite different than the cases where heteroboys scream "faggot!!" and get the vapors over a gay couple holding hands.

Agreed in my personal experience as well ... though from a males perspective as well it seems like society is a lot less judgmental against women kissing/holding hands (strait or gay) then two guys ...

Maybe some of those "perks" of hetros are really just the fact that female hetros seem to be the most likely to do such things in public? Just a guess

Agreed in my personal experience as well ... though from a males perspective as well it seems like society is a lot less judgmental against women kissing/holding hands (strait or gay) then two guys ...

Yeah, instead of being judgmental they just pornify it. Two girls together is HAWT!!!! Because of course what every lesbian wants is to have heteroboys jerking off to her and her girlfriend...


Maybe some of those "perks" of hetros are really just the fact that female hetros seem to be the most likely to do such things in public? Just a guess
The "perk" I was referring to was the chance to be affectionate in public without being harassed. As somebody who has been in lesbian relationships, allow me to personally assure you that I faced far more harassment when being affectionate with my girlfriend than I have ever encountered with a boyfriend.

Yeah, instead of being judgmental they just pornify it. Two girls together is HAWT!!!! Because of course what every lesbian wants is to have heteroboys jerking off to her and her girlfriend...


The "perk" I was referring to was the chance to be affectionate in public without being harassed. As somebody who has been in lesbian relationships, allow me to personally assure you that I faced far more harassment when being affectionate with my girlfriend than I have ever encountered with a boyfriend.

Fair enough I just came from the male view point ... Interesting to get a new perspective.