That's Gay!

[Chris1547624861]

I often see the word "gay" used to define something or someone being lame or a failure somehow. It's particularly virulent on Facebook. I am always offended when I see it, but should I be? Do we say "that's black", to define something as somehow inferior?

 

Even used jokingly by tolerant people, this type of slang sends out the wrong message.

[hager75]

The use of the phrase "that's so gay" is not very common in my country. Still, I think it would be an insult if people intend to say that something is dumb or stupid.

 

:hager75:

[colonelsun]

Well we've been called a lot worse over the years, been imprisoned and tortured for who we are, and had to fight for rights the straight community get automatically......so slang or a group of words that describe my sexuality aren't high on my day to day agenda.

 

If the day ever comes when i have to think twice about what's been said then i may as well give up.....i think there are bigger battles to be fought.

 

Sorry...

[clarkejones605]

I don't allow it among my students. When they say something like:

 

"This is so gay!"

 

I respond that the book/whatever has no sexual preference so can't be gay. It makes them stop and think. Sometimes I will just tell them it is inappropriate, just like calling someone a "Jew", as if it is an insult.

 

Ah, junior high students!

[golferboy24]

it doesn't really bother me unless people are trying to be offensive, its slang, so people are gonna say it. Will it stay? probably not, along with groovy and gnarly which have come and gone with generations. I think to a lot of people it has nothing to do with homosexuality, its just a word with a double meaning, and they aren't trying to be offensive. But there are those jerks who are rude about it, which is not cool. That's what i have a problem with

[colonelsun]

Strange that this subject is raised after a few members here gave Mrs Palin and Mrs Clinton a thorough roughing up during the U.S elections.

 

So let me get this right: it's okay to attack two female politicians as not up to the job and generally insult them BUT it's NOT okay to say "that's so gay"? :D

 

We have an uphill struggle to get equal rights and respect, we want the next generation of homosexuals to have an easier life than we have.....and yet we're intent on shooting ourselves in the foot sometimes.

[golferboy24]

well i have no problem with Clinton, she's smart and i think a great politician. But Palin just is a step back for women, she makes it seem as if they can't do anything. That's why i don't like Palin, it's not because she's female, but because she's an idiot. :lol:

[flickfire]

I've noticed when a lot of young people use the word 'gay', it's usually in a negative way, with bothers me.

 

About Hillary: I agree with you, Golferboy, that Hillary is a smart woman, and that Sarah Palin is out to lunch, which I think is one of the main reasons why McCain lost the election. People were just too damned scared of her!

 

Hillary may be smart, but I hope Obama doesn't choose her as Secretary of State. I'm rooting more for Bill Richardson. 1. Because he pulled in a lot of the Hispanic vote for Obama, which explains why he did so well with them in the Southwestern states.

 

2. He really took a big chance in throwing his support behind Obama in the primaries, when the Clintons really wanted it themselves, and he damaged his relationship with them, and when Richardson called Hillary to tell her of his decision, she reportedly said to him, "But Bill, he CAN'T win!" We all now know how wrong that statement truly was!

 

3. I think he has the better temperment to deal with the incredibly complicated relationships that the U.S. has with countries all over the world.

 

But I think at the end of the day, I think Obama will choose Clinton as his S.o.S. to nullify her chances of running againist him in 2012. It's all about politics unfortunately.

[Nivek]

It offends me to hear people use the term 'gay' in a derrogatory sense. Whether the user realises it or not, it associates homosexuality with a negative image, and Good 'ol TR is right in discouraging it's use among his students.

 

I understand your point colonelsun, but this type of using of the phrase "that's so GAY", is usually spoken by those in their youth. I do think it's important to correct that type of behaviour - even if it's seen as innocent - before it manifests itself in adulthood to some of the atrocities which you mention. Every little bit helps in my opinion.

[Wonderwoman]

well before the word gay was used to describe homosexual people, wasn't it a word for people that had been funny, outspoken and creative ?

 

maybe we should remember that again ;)

 

and well I would not be offended by that term as long as it is not pointed towards a special person i.e. me !

we all have to accept that from time to time certain words are used in a way to describe things that not really are connected to each other.

I do it as well with other words and so I just think we should not be more aggressive about that then really necesseary

 

:ww:

[Guest kevek]

respectfuly to the people posting comments here, not to the author of the thread.

 

you all appear to be playing follow the leader.......

 

perhaps change the directions somewhat.

 

let me call you fag.

 

or even worser faggot

 

how soon we forget, and only look at the present.

 

i did not vote

 

i am tired of the gay agenda being pushed down people throats.

including mine.

 

the numbers do not lie, prop 8 and other agendas all lost (some repeatedly)

we had this discussion all ready.

:sheep:

[Nivek]

kevek - recently, you reacted very strongly to a post which contained a negative word about blacks (posted by a black man btw), and had us remove and quarrantine that thread.

 

I could call the tone of the above post equally offensive to me, as a gay male. I could quarrantine this thread for language which I deem hateful, and against equal rights.... but I am not going to, because I *think* you are trying to say that there are words that are considered 'worse' than using a more innocent phrase that indicates that gay might be bad, and that we have made progress towards greater acceptance from earlier days.

 

Please tell me this is so!

[colonelsun]

well before the word gay was used to describe homosexual people, wasn't it a word for people that had been funny, outspoken and creative ?

 

maybe we should remember that again ;)

 

and well I would not be offended by that term as long as it is not pointed towards a special person i.e. me !

we all have to accept that from time to time certain words are used in a way to describe things that not really are connected to each other.

I do it as well with other words and so I just think we should not be more aggressive about that then really necesseary

 

:ww:

 

You're right Wonderwoman. The word 'gay' has it's origins in wealthy English society, usually used to describe a young, handsome youth, with a personal taste in tailoring (clothes) and an appreciation for the arts. As the arts, and in particular the theatre, became popular in London the 'gay' word was extended to it's actors. It was acceptable back then for effeminate men to play female roles on the stage......women were not considered for the role. It's only when Britain gets more educated, acquires more of her empire and sex comes out of the drawing room do you hear men identifying themselves as gay......and even then it's used as a put down.

 

The word wasn't given to us, we adopted it as gay originally meant to be happy and carefree. In a world of polite manners and class distinctions people spoke in euphemisms. You could argue the gay community has used the 'gay' word for it's own advantage depending on which way the sexual pendulum was swinging at the time, for example we identified with the word when homosexuality was legalised but we disassociated ourselves from it completely during the HIV/AIDS era of the 1980s.

 

It's swings and roundabouts....

[Nivek]

It's swings and roundabouts....

 

LOL - I knew a discussion about the word 'gay' would eventually lead itself back to swings! ;)

[jeterman]

@Chris

 

"Do we say "that's black", to define something as somehow inferior? "

 

Yes, we certainly do.

 

Hardly any other colour is so mysterious and exerts such fascination as black. Despite its consistent popularity in the world of designers, architects and fashion, the colour black is associated in Europe and in European-influenced cultures almost exclusively with negative concepts – death, mourning, darkness, fear, threat, power, destruction, evil, the devil, etc. The close relationship between the colour black and negative semantic content can also be traced back through the history of language. The Romans, for instance, had two words for black: niger and ater, each of which also means dark, sad, ominous, dreadful, malicious. Even if this connection is no longer so apparent in modern European languages, there are a great many idiomatic expressions in which black stands as a synonym for negative aspects. Also in other, non-European cultures, black seems to carry mainly negative connotations. In art (history), in particular, we come across black in the most widely differing forms of representations and use, usually as a symbol of what is negative.

 

Think: "In the black, black friday, black heart.

 

 

The English language is a significant carrier of racism as its uses of "black" and "white" become to mean more than color. The uses of "black" and "white" in the English language are so embedded, so prone to seeming almost natural, so richly, stylistically, and freely intertwined within the system of words, that their unequal uses have become unconscious. Speakers of the English language do not consciously recognize how racially-charged words are, specifically how "black" has negative connotations and "white" positive connotations (and I would even go so far as to say denotations, for what is racism, but a belief in something that is more than a feeling, but a belief in something one believes is fact?) "Ignoring race is understood to be a graceful, liberal, even generous habit" (Morrison 257), but it does nothing to de-racialize a "race"-conscious language. It does nothing to eradicate "race" as real. It does nothing but advocates the use of a language that silences and excludes a people living on the margins of a dominant culture.

 

In order to prove his ideas that the English language is in fact his enemy, Davis lightly skimmed Roget's Thesaurus of the English Language and found the following. The word "whiteness" has 134 synonyms, 44 being favorable ("purity," "cleanness," "chaste," "innocent," "just," "unblemished," "fair") and only 10 seen as mildly negative ("gloss-over," "pale," "whitewash") (74). The word "blackness," on the other hand, had 120 synonyms, 60 of which were unfavorable ("wicked," "deadly," "unclean," "foul," "obscure") and none even mildly positive. Twenty of the words were directly related to "race," such as "Negro," "nigger," and "darkey" (74-75). Without figuring out percentages, it is obvious that a language (specifically American English here) built upon abstractions like justice, liberty, and equality did not intend to share equal terminology with a "race" "found" to be inferior.

 

Notions of "black" as negative and "white" as positive go back further than the first publication of Roget's Thesaurus, however. These notions became institutionalized in the language of the Bible and in the language of Shakespeare. Ali A. Mazrui in "Language and Race in the Black Experience: An African Perspective" finds the use of "black" as a metaphor for "evil," "void," and "death" within the English language worldwide (104). Since Christianity was a religion made victorious mostly through the efforts of white people, as Mazrui argues, then angels became "white" and the devil "black" (104). "Black" as "void" arises from the idea that blacks had no history, that their continent was living through a "dark age," one of barbarism and primitivism. Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper says, "There is only the history of the Europeans in Africa. The rest is darkness . . . and darkness is not a subject of history" (qtd. in Mazrui 107). In both Julius Caesar and MacBeth, Shakespeare equates "black" with "death." In Julius Caesar, the "black sentence" (4.1) was a sentence of death against those associated with the assassination of Caesar. In Macbeth, Malcolm refers to Macbeth as "black Macbeth" (4.3), suggesting his soul is set on only murder and death.

[hager75]

respectfuly to the people posting comments here, not to the author of the thread.

 

you all appear to be playing follow the leader.......

 

perhaps change the directions somewhat.

 

let me call you fag.

 

or even worser faggot

 

how soon we forget, and only look at the present.

 

i did not vote

 

i am tired of the gay agenda being pushed down people throats.

including mine.

 

the numbers do not lie, prop 8 and other agendas all lost (some repeatedly)

we had this discussion all ready.

:sheep:

 

:mad: And your contribution to this thread is..????

 

:hager75:

[tincan]

I'm fed up with making special allowances for things, which is pretty much my view on it too. People need to be stopped being split into groups because afte rall, we are all People. Words like Gay shouldn't suddenly make you call in the national guard to start shouting off about how bad it is to express your feelings towards something by using a word.

 

Gay used to mean happy, then it means homosexual and it seems it's moving along to mean bad now. So what? It's just a word, it doesn't change anything at the end of the day, it is mearly a brand which people cling to in order to fit into a group. Words are words, i'm sure people won't like my view on it, but at the end of the day it is mearly my view, nothing more nothing less. The sooner people stop taking offence, the sooner we will not be split into groups and the world can move on.

 

Or at least thats how i feel.

[golferboy24]

i think wonderwoman is on to something, words change there meaning over time, who knows what gay might mean in 20 years. As for the who black white thing, i don't think it is because of racism. Black is always associated with darkness and death, but not because of africans. White is not associated with purity and cleanliness because of caucasians. Because if that was true how do you explain green being related to wealth and greed? Or purple being related to royalty? Its just how colors evoke emotions, blacks bring out the primal fear of the dark, while whites seem to have been untouched by any colors ergo cleanliness and purity.

[Wonderwoman]

interesting contribution jeterman!

 

for me the work black has a negative meaning but totally unrelated to African people, I don´t even say the word black in that sense as the people differ in colour and race so much so that there is no "black" and no "white" person!

 

I tend to agree with GB that black was simply the symbol of the night and darkness with all it´s dangers and fear as for white, well it´s a delicate colour as you can spoil it very easily and you never get it back afterwards...

 

:ww:

[colonelsun]

Anybody mind if i add political correctness to the thread?

 

My mother has looked after 2,000 kids for social services and in that time has looked after kids from all ethnic backgrounds and during that time has been bombarded by memos on how to describe a kids' origin. In the 1970s a kid of black origin had to be addressed as 'none white but within a multicultural framework'....the word black or coloured was forbidden.....but within 6 months it was all change again and it was okay to call the kid black. The 1980s saw the same kids being called' a child of black origin'....you actually had to include those words in a conversation or any written work. The 1990s saw the last description being dumped because it offended Africans and it eluded to slavery and poverty....so it was all change yet again....this time the phrase was 'a child of black origin'.....yes, black was back in fashion again, forget what went before, so when you introduced 3 month old Zanub you had to say " and this is Zanub, a child of black origin'.....why not just use the kids name never occured to the political correct lobby. So that phrase lasted into 1999 when it was found the new computer systems couldn't handle 'child of black origin' being typed into one box.

 

God knows what the kids thought as they were growing up but i'd think me and my race had been used as a football by governments and the politically correct lobby.

[Guest kevek]

nivek, i was silenced, so i could not respond sooner

 

for the record, i did not respond strongly to the racism thread

i responded, and stuck to my beliefs, and still do.

all i can suggest, is if it makes you feel any better,

perhaps that could leed to it finaly being dropped from further discussions

that was over a month ago.

repost it, i wont object.

 

my previous comment i thought were clear.

 

i remember how offensive and still is, fag and faggot.

its what this topic is about, so its hard not to use those words.

 

i was not trying to offend anybody, only offer a different opinion.

 

i find the words fag and faggot more offensive than the term "gay"

 

its a genration thing.....i did not mean offense to any member

 

@hagar my contribution to this thread was a difference of opinion

that obviously are not shared by everybody. i am glad you expressed yours

publicly.

 

again....this is a biased crowd..as in a gay forum.

ME, and alot of other people are not willing to welcome the gay agenda

piece

[Wonderwoman]

@ kevek

 

but is it not a totally different thing to call something : that is so gay and call someone a faggot ?!

it´s the same that black and nigger could mean the same, but if you say nigger you make it obvious that you are a racist and used that word on intention to hurt someone, as you would when you say faggot to someone!

 

but when you say : that is so gay to an ABBA video, I would not be offended but even agree as it is so gay !!!

but if you call any of them a faggot I kick your ass

 

:ww:

[Guest kevek]

WW you got your bra straps all twisted

 

i can only try to be so plane, then i get boring.

 

i use me and you as a example.

 

I am 60

 

WW is 21

 

when i was younger, fag and faggot were the hate words of the day.

and still are, to my generation.

 

I ask someone who is much younger about a fag, and they say they dont smoke. ha

 

WW because of her virgin age, does not know the words fag or faggot.

she does know the word GAY, and finds that equaly offensive.

 

i only use me and WW as example.

 

i am only trying to point out differences in how people feel, according to their generation.

 

nivek keeps trying to change my mind, but i wont agree with him..ha

[Wonderwoman]

can it be that either you did not understand me or I was not clear...

 

I wish that I would still be 21 and second why in hell should I now know the words fag or faggot ?

 

next thing is that, I´m no native English speaker so in my language there are other hate words for homosexuals then gay or faggot !

but believe they hurt as well!!!!!

 

 

:ww:

[Nivek]

I could call the tone of the above post equally offensive to me, as a gay male. I could quarrantine this thread for language which I deem hateful, and against equal rights.... but I am not going to, because I *think* you are trying to say that there are words that are considered 'worse' than using a more innocent phrase that indicates that gay might be bad, and that we have made progress towards greater acceptance from earlier days.

 

Please tell me this is so!

 

Erm....I thought this was clear - that I *did* understand your original intent as you further described it.

 

I was just trying to point out that things, no matter how well intended, can always be seen in another light.