"that's so gay!" - offensive, no?

[SlartyBartFast]

But they want me [edited]

And ther'es the reason I think so many people hate gays.

If straight women don't like you, homosexual men AND women probably won't either. But it's a lot easier to lay down the hate and blame to vent your frustrations at your own inadequacies and defects than it is to better yourself and learn to respect yourself.

The same goes for the sexually repressed and/or religious types. They can't come to terms with their own sexuality and instead of confronting their internal demons, they repress their problems by converting their frustration into hate and attacking a percieved enemy instead of their own internal demons.

I think that the level of insult and discussion from many of the less mature posts in this thread is positive proof that the term is offensive and should be avoided.

Waiting for the lock....

[SlartyBartFast]

So the lesson is....
Don't say: Dude, your new pink jetta is gay.

Say: Dude, that car is hideous/disgusting/horrible/horrid/loathsome/nasty/repellent/repugnant/repulsive/revolting
.

Sure seems the English language is so laking in terms that offensive connotations wrt minorities are required to express disgust. The Thesaurus is your friend.

Noy if you want to use PROPER surfer lingo:

Say: Dude, that chariot is nocty!

http://www.riptionary.com/cgi-bin/ripsearch.pl?query=ugly&stpos=0&stype=and

http://www.riptionary.com/cgi-bin/ripsearch.pl?query=car&stype=and

[SCpoloRicker]

Are you kidding me? You said that I can't be that big of a conservative if I don't hate gays. So where is the problem. I responded and said you don't know me very well and dont want to go into depth and possibly offend some people.

So far, so good. Now hang on, I'll explain the rest.

I'll go ahead and admit I have taken the vast logical leap required to tie together that your dislike of homosexuals is based on religous doctrine of some sort.

Having attended a Jesuit school and being from a Roman Catholic background, it is my interpretation that the Bible doesn't raise a very convincing argument against homosexuality. And there are certainly other things in the Bible that are more prevalent that are essentially ignored in modern interpretation.

However, it appears (due to 11 states passing legislature) that many Christian leaders interpret this differently, and have made gays and gay rights a demon that must be slayed.

In a pithy attempt to be e-cool, I suggested you try reading the Bible for yourself, implying that you were simply taking what others say as writ, "becuase the Bible says."

I then added the ever amusing pic of a typical Bible belt denizen with his cleverly written "Get a Brain, Morans!" Which apparently was deleted.

Hope this cleared it up for ya.

[ShooterJM]

Sure seems the English language is so laking in terms that offensive connotations wrt minorities are required to express disgust. The Thesaurus is your friend.

Yes it is. See but a Thesaurus is used to find alternative words that mean the same thing. Your example would require a dictionary, as all of the examples you used as replacements are not what I'm trying to say; they completely change the statment. The key is the word gay also means "of or relating to". I have gay friends, they identify themselves with the word "gay". If you find it offensive that I deem something stereotypically homosexual, then you have the problem, not me. Now if I used the word "rhymes with maggot" (don't want to challenge the filter) that is offensive to most of the gay community, then you'd have a point.

I suppose you could use the word "effeminate", but I'm sure that would offend someone somewhere because it refers to undesirable female characteristics.

[SlartyBartFast]

...
The key is the word gay also means "of or relating to".
...
Now if I used the word "rhymes with maggot" (don't want to challenge the filter) that is offensive to most of the gay community, then you'd have a point.
...
I suppose you could use the word "effeminate", but I'm sure that would offend someone somewhere because it refers to undesirable female characteristics.

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or simply don't get what I'm trying to say.

What's at issue is the intent of the word.

If you say "That car is so gay!" what is the word "gay" replacing? If it's a negative stereotype that your trying to infer, the use is offensive. Indeed no different to saying "Only a (rymes with maggot)" would drive that car."

"Rymes with maggot" is offensive for a different reason. It is offensive because it was ALWAYS a derrogatory and offensive slur. Much like the N word. However, within Gay and Black circles both Fa-- and Ni-- were "taken back" by their own slang to rise against the hate and show their own level of control. but, unless you belong to those groups and are using the terms in the correct setting and in the correct context they remain offensive.

Effeminate is not offensive. It defines certain traits and is defined in the dictionary as such. So it is difficult for a group to claim blanket offense. But, as the stereotypical traits the word describes change ti may indeed be passe or become offensive. Regardless, ANY word can be used offensively.

But, that's why intent and context play a huge role in whether a term/word is offensive or not. Evolution of the language and society have a large impact as well.

If you were to say "This carnival is really gay." What does it mean? Well, in past times it would be a compliment meaning it was a happy enjoyable place. Nowadays however it would undoubtable be taken as a slur. As usurped usage of this particular word has almost defacto become associated only with describing a homosexual it's offensive when ever used unless specifically used to describe a homosexual. Identical to the term Jew or Jewish.

The defense of saying that using gay to use the "of or relating to" meaning is weak. I'm not so sure any of your stereotypes of "gay" culture and likes and dislikes would apply to the whole gay community (or even a majority of it). Saying that a pink car or acting effeminate is "gay" would be highly offensive to the headbanging, heavy-metal, and goth type gays I've known.

edit:

Actually ***got was a perfectly good word (a bundle of sticks) as was *** and ***ging (working hard) they just got demonized before gay and is now listed as "usually derogatory" by Webster's.

But, then there was the connotation of younger boys subservient to older in British public schools....

Mods can figure out if the cuss filter thing is worthy of action. But without discussing even the dirtiest words in the right context, people will never learn why they should be considered dirty, or the context in which they got relegated to cuss words. But in this day and age it seems knee-jerk reactions, pathetic no-tolerance rules, ignorance, and blind faith have often replaced the knowledge and intellegence once reserved to judge actions. I hold the mods here in higher regard than the usual mindless enforcement drones that populate the world at large, so we'll see.

[bofh]

You know,

***got also refers to a bundle of stick used as a torch, or a cigerette.

Personaly, that's where I think the term "flaming" came from.

[SCpoloRicker]

The defense of saying tat using gay to use the "of or relating to" meaning is weak. I'm not so sure any of your stereotypes of "gay" culture and likes and dislikes would apply to the whole gay community (or even a majority of it). Saying that a pink car or acting effeminate is "gay" would be highly offensive to the headbanging, heavy-metal, and goth type gays I've known.

There's something else at play, too, SBF. The stereotypes exist and are perpetuated precisely because it justifies the dehumanization.

To use the Jewish example, by using it to imply cheap, it also conveys that it is acceptable to look down on these people.

[paintballrulzs]

So far, so good. Now hang on, I'll explain the rest.

I'll go ahead and admit I have taken the vast logical leap required to tie together that your dislike of homosexuals is based on religous doctrine of some sort.

Having attended a Jesuit school and being from a Roman Catholic background, it is my interpretation that the Bible doesn't raise a very convincing argument against homosexuality. And there are certainly other things in the Bible that are more prevalent that are essentially ignored in modern interpretation.

However, it appears (due to 11 states passing legislature) that many Christian leaders interpret this differently, and have made gays and gay rights a demon that must be slayed.

In a pithy attempt to be e-cool, I suggested you try reading the Bible for yourself, implying that you were simply taking what others say as writ, "becuase the Bible says."

I then added the ever amusing pic of a typical Bible belt denizen with his cleverly written "Get a Brain, Morans!" Which apparently was deleted.

Hope this cleared it up for ya.

I have a question for you: Did I ever claim to be opposed to homosexuallity because of religious reasons? Consider that my friend before you go into stereotyping me. And saying that I should study the Bible is an understatement. I went through 4 years a Catholic High School in which they drilled the Bible and every part of it into our little heads. I still am confident I don't know as much as many do, but I have a very good understanding of the Bible and also one that is better than most of the population.

Even after attending 4 years of Catholic school and brough up in a Catholic high school I do not consider myself to be Catholic at all. I would not consider myself an ahteist, but rather agnostic. I repell my current learning and understanding of God, but I dont deny that he very well might exist, I just see no solid proof (lets stick to the topic here). Just because I oppose homosexuality does not mean it is because of a certain religious affiliation. Many people that are atheist are completely opposed to it. Where do they get their views and opinions on it?

Maybe before you immediately kjump to conclusions you should consider all posibilities. I am not trying to be "e-cool" as you so put it.

[SlartyBartFast]

There's something else at play, too, SBF. The stereotypes exist and are perpetuated precisely because it justifies the dehumanization.

To use the Jewish example, by using it to imply cheap, it also conveys that it is acceptable to look down on these people.

Too true. And exactly why I fully agreed with the Jewish analogy.

[SlartyBartFast]

Many people that are atheist are completely opposed to it. Where do they get their views and opinions on it?

See my previous post about personal repression....

Plus in your case, there may be a lesson to be learned between Catholic "education" and "indoctrination".

Perhaps they were unsuccesful in assimilating you to their world view but were quite successful in assimilating you to some of their other views.

So, instead of getting all offended about other making assumptions about why you're homophobic why not lay it on the line and tell us why you are? But all that's a little OT or the thread.

[SCpoloRicker]

I have a question for you: Did I ever claim to be opposed to homosexuallity because of religious reasons? Consider that my friend before you go into stereotyping me. And saying that I should study the Bible is an understatement. I went through 4 years a Catholic High School in which they drilled the Bible and every part of it into our little heads. I still am confident I don't know as much as many do, but I have a very good understanding of the Bible and also one that is better than most of the population.

Even after attending 4 years of Catholic school and brough up in a Catholic high school I do not consider myself to be Catholic at all. I would not consider myself an ahteist, but rather agnostic. I repell my current learning and understanding of God, but I dont deny that he very well might exist, I just see no solid proof (lets stick to the topic here). Just because I oppose homosexuality does not mean it is because of a certain religious affiliation. Many people that are atheist are completely opposed to it. Where do they get their views and opinions on it?

Maybe before you immediately kjump to conclusions you should consider all posibilities. I am not trying to be "e-cool" as you so put it.

So, your not into Jesus? Then I really am confused as to why you feel the way you do. Apologies for unfairly pigeonholing. Just for kicks, would you agree or disagree with the statement that the Bible makes a strong argument against homosexuality?

[MarkM]

Tread carefully now people..religion and political motivated views are going to turn nasty so you know what will happen to this thread, so make sure you keep it civil.
The Morans pic I didn't remove but to be fair to whoever did remove it, the influx of pictures of that and a similar nature will spin this thread into something totally different and that is not the idea? of this thread.

My own thoughts are that the use is over used and within the confines of an online forum it is attempts by kids to look cool when the connotations are such that they really have no concept of if they did then you wouldn't see the use . Context has been covered and correctly noted that even substitution of the word by a phrase is often offensive but again only within certain contexual situations. Unregulated access to the internet and similar mediums is the result that we are now seeing. If the parents were aware of the depth to which their little johnnys were sinking I doubt there would be quite the number of people online as there is currently. Extreme political views are just that extreme but to those that follow that creed to them it is normal....I won't direct this at any particular group but condemnation out of hand is very often the hallmark of such groups. Balance is required and without guiding no one will know what is correct or inccorect...I also agree that in certain areas Political Correctness has gone too far. This said, as long as awareness of where this poitical correctness has it's base then at least you are some way along to understanding why it has happened. I have no clue if that makes me a liberal or whatever american political belief system it applys to but that is how I see this.

All that said heed the warning at the beginng of my post, keep it civil.

[Lohman446]

Tread carefully now people..religion and political motivated views are going to turn nasty so you know what will happen to this thread,
All that said heed the warning at the beginng of my post, keep it civil.

Umm... thats the parts I understood

[red robot]

So the lesson is....

Don't say: Dude, your new pink jetta is gay.

Say: Excuse me sir, your new pink jetta, in my opinion, would seem to be an accessory to the lifestyle that a sterotypically homosexual male would choose, not that there is anything wrong with that.

That made me laugh real hard.

[nippinout]

I was born in 1980 and as long as I can remember, gay never seemed like a deragatory slur. The word that rhymes with hag/bag/flag, however, was a slur. I think it's just a word with two definitions. One to describe homosexuals and things of homosexual nature, and the other definition to describe something as lame/stupid/idiotic. Same word, different connotations.

We need to stop being so damn politically correct.

When was the last time you heard the word, African-American, used for an immigrant from Somalia? It's used to describe blacks in America who have been here for generations. You don't hear white people described as European-American or even Anglo-Saxon. The term African-American should be used for people who actually are direct from Africa. The adjective, black, is not racist. Despite what people say, Bill Clinton is not black, he is not European-American, he is white (and a communist ) . Kobe Bryant is black, he is not African-American.

It is possible to change a word's use and definition over time. Look at how the gay community has embraced the word, *not a bad word here*. Gay is not a bad word.

This thread is gay.

*Durr, the word that beings with Q and rhymes with beer/clear/fear is a cuss word? How gay.