Using the word "gay" not in the context of homosexuality.

[clockradioclock]

Jesus fucking Christ, Cran, "you're".

If you're going to argue linguistics, use the minimum of proper grammar.

[Topcatyo]

Also, the South Park episode The F Word discusses this topic and I think is worth a look.  It's free to watch on the Internets or Netflix so I recommend giving it a look.  My roommate freshmen year, a gay dance/theater major, told me once that he thinks everybody should watch it.  I figure it's a good recommendation because A.) I liked the episode, B.) My roommate was a very intelligent person and C.) His being gay is somewhat pertinent to the whole matter, and he feels the episode is important.

I've found that South Park generally is pretty good at providing multiple viewpoints on issues and I think in a discussion about something as divisive as this I think thinking about the topic from as many angles as possible is beneficial.

[F U Clock]

Also, the South Park episode The F Word discusses this topic and I think is worth a look.  It's free to watch on the Internets or Netflix so I recommend giving it a look.  My roommate freshmen year, a gay dance/theater major, told me once that he thinks everybody should watch it.

I've found that South Park generally is pretty good at providing multiple viewpoints on issues and I think in a discussion about something as divisive as this I think thinking about the topic from as many angles as possible is beneficial.

I always had an issue with this episode. Most South Park episodes, truth be told.

It's like they know deep-down that it's wrong and hateful to use gay slurs as generic insults, so they have to create ridiculous scenarios to make it okay. And they don't even follow those rules. They act like they want to use "fag" exclusively in reference to douchebags, and not for gay people, as a way of re-appropriating the word. But then I think back to other episodes, like the "future people" one where they're cleaning up the planet and acting like hippies and Stan says, "Wait, this is gay," so they stop, after directly comparing it to actual homosexual behavior. Or the episode where Cartman gets his ass kicked by Wendy, and Butters warns him if he loses then "everyone will think [he's] a fag..." Obviously there they mean sissy, prissy man, and not "incosiderate asshole" as they later tried to appropriate it.

So I dunno. I just don't buy it. I think they know it's wrong and they're just trying to find any BS excuse to still use it.

[RobClock]

I think it's best not to really look to South Park in any sort of philosophical debate, because it always seems to me like a stream of consciousness from Matt and Trey. Some episodes do have good intentions, mind you, but like a person just speaking their mind at any given time, they're going to be contradictory or hypocritical in some manner.

[Slurpee]

Your 100% right. I need to re-evaluate the way that I look at life. Or you need to not spend so much time trying to play doctor and realize that the opinions of mine is mine alone and the word fag means nothing more than the word stone. When someone calls you a fag, its not because your comparing them to a set of people, its comparing that person to the meaning of the word. At no point when I say your homosexual do I mean the entire race and civilization of people whe loves another person of the same born sex is the same as you. What I mean is, You are homosexual as in you are the as webster puts it: Adjective; person/persons/species act of attraction for purpose of stimulation sexually or mentally in attempts of procreatation recreation using the same born sex.

Essentially there, I said your someone that likes to do the same thing. I at no point said anything wrong with it. I said your homosexual. When I say fag, its because homosexual does not roll off the tongue. When I say gay, its because people were offended by the word horse thief at some point in history and decided gay was a term better suited for them because it means "happy" as the original meaning. To be "GAY" was to be happy, so people who likes the same sex decided to be "GAY". There for I am glad you are gay and not a horse thief.

When I use the term such as, this shit is gay, I am not saying this is men pushing the penis into men. I am also not saying this is a woman shoving her twat into another twat. I at no point am referancing an entire group of people doing that act, no is that shit the act of doing it. Its a sarcastic sodism expression that one says as an audible/variable placeholder of lack of a better description by associating a word "HAPPY" as a cross refrence negative with an adjective that is negative. This shit is happy (sarcastically). Thats where that term comes from. What happens is people benine to the actual comeabouts of words decide they want to play dick tracy hold a sign and show two men making love, then fight as if people care. People don't care, but people care when people make a bigger story out of it.

People do not like gay people, its considered unnatural to some, thats fine, let bigons be bigons. The problem is people like you decide you want to fight and join in on the fight and continue it. What you essentially do is just add fuel to the fire. Your not protecting anyone by making the word non-derogatory, in fact you make it worse. Ask your self a question, did you drink underage? Did you smoke ever? Have you done drugs? Did you have sex or look at porn before you were 18? What does this have in common? Alot.. this is the point where this post of yours turns from some guy posting on the internet to some guy who is most likely older than you, has a well versed education, has seen the world, and more than likely has done more with his life this year that you have done in your entire time in the clockcrew. Basically what I am saying is, prepare to learn something.

You don'd do actions in life because you can. You do them because you can't. Why do you continue to make flash movies? Its not because your the best thing since sliced bread. It's because you can reap a reward. Now apply that logic to the gay community. Why do they continue to fight? Its not because they keep winning, its because they want to continue to get what they don't have. You will never win the argument of gay. Thats like asking people to stop using Jesus as a shout out. There is nothing wrong, its not a hate crime. If I said norwegian on the other hand, thats a hate crime. Gay is not. How are the two different you ask? Well people who are fags never had it so bad they were enslaved. They also weren't sold. No instead they had some people killed etc etc. Oh noe... jesus... fuck.. gay whaa.. some people died. More people die over stupid shit than people being gay, being called a fag and becoming a hate crime statistic. People die because of race, religion, because of drugs, because well they are unlucky... nothing happens to them. Why don't they get words that offend them revoked.

Ah, you see I know where your going to spin, so sit down for a second and continue to listen. What your looking at is the small picture. What you see is that I am saying fag this fag that, using the context of the word without justice. What you fail to see is the shear fact that I am saying this on purpose with no remorse. Has it changed you? Because I said this thread is gay, and I think your a fag. Nothing has changed in life. Are you going to off yourself? Are you going to cry about it? I could get a ban, sure.. but for what.. what is that going to change. Nothing. However I expect after I post this your going to cry about it, get mad inside, and hit that button below that says REPLY. Guess what. I will be waiting with a simple response of.. you have given that word more power because you took the time to reply being offended or supporting the idolistic view that a simple set of black ink or spoken words said is enough to drive you to the point of hating or getting mad. Get the fuck over it. Close your ears. Awaiting your reply you sly devil from the internet.

-Cran

To address your claim that any reply from me at all must be rooted in hatred or anger, I think I've already repeatedly demonstrated that this is not the case. My goal since entering this thread has been to provide you with some perspective that you don't have so that you can reconsider your attitudes and stop making excuses for and ignoring the harm you're doing. If you felt somebody was in the habit of doing something cruel, that you'd been affected by in the past, and this person was attempting to use empty rhetoric to publicly excuse this behavior, wouldn't you do what you could to help elucidate the situation?

No, your words in this thread, as I've said, don't affect me personally. But you're going to carry those attitudes on outside of this thread, and you're going to be affecting people who aren't as thick-skinned as I am. People who've done you no harm, who don't have a lot of allies, and who I'd like to do what I can to help. Regardless of what your intent behind the insult actually is, as I've said, sincere rejection of homosexuality is often expressed in the same way, and homosexuals can't afford the luxury of assuming you're not airing your personal prejudices. Gay teens are 5 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers. There's a reason for that. I think any steps we could take to reduce that statistic would be worth it, and as an introspective and educated person who lived life as a gay teen, I think I have a fair measure of insight as to what those causes could be, and I think any reasonable person would at least pause to give those insights consideration, because there are not a lot of people in my situation who are as patient and articulate about it as me.

You briefly address the "opinion" argument, to which I'll just say opinions are views or judgements formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Opinions can be wrong, can be held for bad or unhealthy reasons, and when one attempts to justify one's opinions with reasoning, those opinions are opened to scrutiny, where those shortcomings can be exposed. In an ideal world this would not be taken as an act of aggression, but enlightenment. We don't live in an ideal world- we live in a shitty world, but I'm willing to work through that.

You argue that in using homosexuality as an insult, you're not comparing to every homosexual ever, but to the definition of homosexual (and here I'll note that you conflated "fag" and "homosexual", and for some reason mistook homosexuality for both a race and a civilization, of which it is neither). To which I reply the definition of the word is an explanation of what the word refers to; there's thus no reason for treating it as a separate entity, except for what you're doing, which is attempting to draw an arbitrary distinction in order to differentiate your behavior from behavior that you can offer no defense of. If I compare something to a stone (like Bob Dylan or Bob Seger) what I'm saying is in some respects its characteristics are akin to those typical of a stone. If the association is negative, I'm saying that there are negative attributes that are typical of stone. If I do it with a group of people, instead of a stone, what I'm saying is those negative attributes are true of that group of people.

You also argue that you're not actively insinuating any negative connotations with your use of words associated with homosexuality, which is true, in some cases, but we have to take into account context, colloquial meanings, and popular understanding. We're not talking about simply referring to things that are homosexual as homosexual, we're talking about actively using words that refer to homosexuals or homosexuality outside of the context of homosexuality to communicate something negative.

You also argue semantics, which I have to say is fiercely ironic given the amount of malapropism, homophone confusion, and misspelling you've committed in these sins against language you call posts. (One might even begin to wonder if you're not an expert on matters linguistic. 0_0) But rather than an empty appeal to qualifications, as you decided to make in your misbegotten attempt to wow me with your world experience (to which I reply: 1. you don't know me, 2. experience does not trump reason.), I'll actually address what you tried to put across: No, "gay" was not an alternative developed because people decided that "horse thief" was offensive. It entered acceptable parlance in the 20th century because "queer" and "homosexual" were considered derogatory and overly clinical, respectively. No, a sarcastic reference to the "mirthful" meaning of the word gay is not where using it as an insult comes from, and I defy you to provide a single piece of historical evidence to substantiate that claim. Gay is not a word homosexuals claimed so that they'd be associated with a positive word, or so that they'd have something to complain about. It was a euphemism dating back to the 17th century that entered regular use in the mid-20th century for lack of a better term- it had been in style guides and dictionaries referring to homosexuality for decades and the old use had almost completely fallen by the wayside long before it was co-opted as a pejorative. You are the one that's ignorant of the etymology of the word. Or should I say "benine to its comeabouts"?

No, it is absolutely NOT alright that people do not like gay people and consider it unnatural. There is decades of copious peer-reviewed, double-blind scientific research that demonstrates sexual orientation arises from natural causes, that it's not a reliable predictor of any non-sexual behaviors, and that it can't be reliably changed. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact that people like to pretend is a matter of opinion in order to justify their ignorance and prejudices. The idea that it's somehow okay to think something that's true is false is a harmful false equivalence designed to protect people's self-important ignorance, and, partly as a result of that protection of ignorance, globally people who've committed no crime are denied basic human rights, jailed, castrated, tortured, and executed. The tide of history has never been turned by "letting bygones be bygones" (which incidentally refers to things that happened in the past, for which a presently maintained attitude of discrimination and prejudice hardly qualifies)- ignorance is to be combated with the truth. Civil progress is not achieved by rolling over.

Did I drink underage? No. Have I ever smoked? No. Done drugs? Yes, but nothing illegal. Had sex or looked at porn before I was 18? Yes, but nothing illegal (it is not illegal for a minor to view or be in possession of pornography. In the eyes of the law, a minor is incapable of understanding the consequences of viewing pornography, which is why it's illegal to sell, distribute, or display it to them). Your point seems to be that saying something is wrong makes it more appealing. My point is that that doesn't make it not wrong, and if somebody's properly educated about why these things are considered wrong (and there are reasons), they're equipped to understand the consequences of their actions, and decide for themselves whether or not they should do it. Premarital sex was considered "wrong", but people looked at it, and decided there's nothing wrong with safe recreational sex between consenting, mindful people. Stoning adulterers to death was not considered "wrong", but people took some time to really consider that, and attitudes changed. They did not change because the people that still wanted to stone people to death retreated to a stance of, "You can't tell me what's right or wrong, and you're not going to stop me from stoning people by telling me it's bad," and everybody else just decided to live with it. They changed because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion. Is the harm done by using homophobic slurs as generic insults comparable to stoning? Of course not. And you are perfectly free to decide for yourself if you want to keep using homophobic slurs as generic insults, but I think if any decent person gave proper consideration to what the potential ill effects that doing so can have on people that have done nothing to deserve it, they would at the very least take that information into consideration and reflect on the harm they might be causing. Understand: I don't expect anybody to stop. As a matter of fact, it's something I overlook periodically in my own behavior. But that's not a matter of it being okay to do, it's a manner of allowing myself the occasional transgression. It's not about banning it or eradicating it- it's about reducing the net harm caused by people who don't mean to be causing any harm by making them more aware of the effect their words have on people.

And no, saying norwegian is not a hate crime. A hate crime is an actual crime committed with a prejudiced motivation. Hate crime legislation is not to prevent people from using words that hurt people's feelings, it's to prevent using crime and physical violence as an intimidation tactic against a protected class. And again, you're assuming I want the words revoked, and I don't. I don't even have a problem with the words being used in most contexts- great strides have been made reclaiming the words "queer" and "homosexual", and symbols like the pink triangle (which started as a mark of shame from the holocaust). I have absolutely no problem with the words being used accurately, clinically, or positively- my problem is people taking those words and using their associations with a derided group of people to mean something hurtful. My problem is the climate of fear and hatred it creates. My problem is otherwise good people refusing to see reason, and choosing to continue to do harm, because it's easier than admitting their transgressions and changing their behavior. I don't expect the whole world to change. I just want people to understand there's a reason this kind of thing is treated as a problem. And maybe they'll change their behavior, and just one gay teen will go through less of a hell than I went through. Is that naive, arrogant, pushy? I don't think so. I think I'm doing what I can to help.

-->Slurpee~~~~

[Slurpee]

Also

Why do you continue to make flash movies? Its not because your the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm clearly the best thing since sliced bread, come on.

[clockradioclock]

Where can I learn to express myself with such clarity and poise? Strunk & White have nothing on this.

[AlbinoClock]

Love me some Slurpee.

[CranberryClock]

Sadly, I am pretty sure at this point that it's that one. Disappointing too, I thought Cran was one of the good ones.

I am a good one. This is a debate forum. You probably don't know what side I am on ;-). All I do is play devils advocate to get people riled up.

[AlbinoClock]

I am a good one. This is a debate forum. You probably don't know what side I am on ;-). All I do is play devils advocate to get people riled up.

Dumb.

[Silly Putty Clock]

the gay science

[Topcatyo]

Funny story. Not an opinion but just something sorta related.

I was at an Eagles tailgate with my family.  The only people not going to the actual game were my cousin Jared, his boyfriend, my brother and I.  While we were there, my family had met some other family and was trying to get these two girls to hook up with us (my brother and I).  The girls were pretty trashy and neither of us really wanted to hook up with them.

When our family had gone to the game, those of us who weren't going decided to hang out at my brother's place for a bit.  On our way there, as soon as the girls were out of earshot, the first thing my cousin said was "Those girls make me glad I'm a horse thief."

It was funny and it made me think of this thread.

[GodClock]

the filter really does that story justice

[Sinister Clock]

Is horse thief a word filter or just a joke or what? Because I am getting very confused.

[RobClock]

Is horse thief a word filter or just a joke or what? Because I am getting very confused.

word filter.
'bundle of sticks' -> horse thief.

[buttplug]

Is horse thief a word filter or just a joke or what? Because I am getting very confused.

Don't be a horse thief

[AbsintheClock]

[AlbinoClock]

You mean you accidentally had sex with a man?

[Sinister Clock]

No I accidentally had sex with your mum thinking she was a man.

1.5/10

[TimHortonsClock]

I doubt you can use such an archaic word in this day and age due to being used as modern slang to describe homosexuality.  So yeah, you can offend quite a bit of people because they don't know what you mean.