When I hear the word 'gay' I immediately think of...

Gay people also use it to as a derogatory manner against other gays.

 

That's a rather idiotic generalization, and I'm not sure what your point was, if you had one. Not all gay people use 'gay' derogatorily against other gay people, and the fact that some gay people do doesn't make it admirable behavior.

 

Pedophiles aren't unique individuals?

 

I have seen masculine gay guys call the fem ones faggo ts.

- - - Updated - - -

I have seen masculine gay guys call the fem ones faggo ts.

 

My point is, we (none gays and gays) can not use the word gay any more for what it real mean which is being happy or being joyful. In fact gays have a more discriminatory attitude they discriminate or are very critical on others appearance be it the way they dress, their physical being which include ethnic background, their religious faith,opinion, and etc.

 

So? The point stands that not all gay people do this, and the fact that some do doesn't make it admirable behavior.

Newsflash: Gay people are just as diverse as straight people. Some can be real (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s, but that doesn't mean it's typical of most gay people, some people's limited anecdotal experience notwithstanding.

 

That's not a point, it's hyperbole that displays a poor understanding of what language is and how it evolves. Words are merely representational; they don't have "real" meanings, only popularly accepted meanings. Think of it like algebra, where variables like 'x' and 'y' represent something in a formula and can be assigned a value to calculate a result. In the case of language, words are variables that are assigned different values depending on the meaning one wishes to convey. Of course, to be understood, the hearer/reader receiving that message has to have the same understanding of what a word represents as the speaker/writer. A word is not the thing it represents, which is why various languages and dialects can use different words to represent the same thing, and why the same word can have different meanings in different contexts.

Dictionaries aren't rulebooks that dictate the "real" meaning of a word. They merely report on popularly accepted meanings, and because language evolves as a society changes, dictionaries require continual updating to report on new words and new accepted meanings of existing words.

So gay people aren't stopping anyone from using the word 'gay' to mean something else, like joyful or happy. We didn't co-opt the word - it was applied to us as a form of slang by others and gay people eventually began using it among themselves. Eventually that usage became popular enough to supplant other meanings as the primary meaning (and don't confuse 'popular' here with approval; the origins of the word as applied to gay people don't suggest approval. The expression of disapproval can determine popular meaning of a word as well).

BS. This also isn't a point, just negative stereotyping. It would seem your purpose in commenting is to malign gay people by perpetuating negative stereotypes.

In other words, you still don't get it. We aren't the Borg. We don't have 'hive mind'. We're unique individuals with diverse opinions and behavior.

 

That could be said about any group, though. When someone calls a gay person a faggo t, you expect that person to be a homophobic straight guy, not a gay guy who happens to be more masculine. I see your point, but I think it's more hypocritical when people in the gay community start judging the level of acceptable gayness of others in the community.

 

=

If that is not the point then what is? You seem to go around in huge circles denyfing the point why the word "gay" has now as you said change from its original meaning to a secondary meaning that means homosexuals. And why do you think there is no actual word or term for gay? why barrow the origibal word gay to mean homosexuals? People who are not homosexuals will have the tendency to avoid the use of the word gay because of two things (1) offending some body example: group of heterosexuals having a good time watching football and one will comment "you are or I am so gay today" in order to be politically correct "you or I am so happy today" (2) sexual indentification.

Words such as gay change or evolve to a different meaning because of misuse and this goes back to what is the proper term or word for homosexuals, maybe they should be called homosexuals not gays?

And it became popular because gays accepted it as such. Maybe they can change that too just like they have been changing the meaning of marriage.

So you are saying there are no racist or discriminations in the gay community? So if a gay person criticise another person appearance especially fellow gay that is stereotyping? I think you are in denial.

Who ever said that you are Borg? Not me and you just said it gays are unique individuals with diverse opinions and behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

=

If that is not the point then what is? You seem to go around in huge circles denyfing the point why the word "gay" has now as you said change from its original meaning to a secondary meaning that means homosexuals. And why do you think there is no actual word or term for gay? why barrow the origibal word gay to mean homosexuals? People who are not homosexuals will have the tendency to avoid the use of the word gay because of two things (1) offending some body example: group of heterosexuals having a good time watching football and one will comment "you are or I am so gay today" in order to be politically correct "you or I am so happy today" (2) sexual indentification.

Words such as gay change or evolve to a different meaning because of misuse and this goes back to what is the proper term or word for homosexuals, maybe they should be called homosexuals not gays?

And it became popular because gays accepted it as such. Maybe they can change that too just like they have been changing the meaning of marriage.

So you are saying there are no racist or discriminations in the gay community? So if a gay person criticise another person appearance especially fellow gay that is stereotyping? I think you are in denial.

Who ever said that you are Borg? Not me and you just said it gays are unique individuals with diverse opinions and behavior.

 

Precisely my point.

Um, no. That would be more stereotyping. I'm not given to making those kinds of assumptions, especially since I've heard it used by a wide variety of people in many different contexts, one of those being by a woman I wouldn't generally consider 'homophobic', in application to someone being (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)y to get attention. In other words, it seemed a very specific application. I've likewise heard plenty of vitriol from anti-gay people that didn't need to rely on using that word.

I wouldn't say it's a judgment of 'acceptable levels of gayness'. I'd say it's a pointless divide wherein one sort of person tries to make themselves look superior to another based on traits of masculinity/effeminacy that really don't determine 'how gay' someone is. I don't consider effeminacy to be "more gay" than exaggerated butchness, and neither to be more gay than a gay person who doesn't especially stand out in some way. I kinda think that 'levels of gayness' is a bit ridiculous (not criticizing your usage, just the concept itself). How does one be 'more gay'? Is it the depth of attraction to the same-sex? The amount of sex? The number of partners? Knowledge of so-called 'gay culture'? Acting out stereotypes?

As my opening post of the thread states, we're unique individuals. I can't really come up with any good reason to be concerned with how gay one person is in comparison to the next, much less what standard should be applied to make that measurement.

 

Hardly just a "secondary" meaning. For starters, the earliest meaning is not "happy", but "stately and beautiful, splendid and showily dressed" (early 14th century). The meaning of 'happy' arises in the late 14th century. "Lewd or lascivious' were also early meanings. I have not "gone in circles" or denied that the meaning of the word has changed. I have merely challenged the ridiculous notion that words can only have one "real" meaning.

:sigh: You're so not getting it. I will try again, though I suspect the exercise is futile.

There is no "actual word" for anything. Words are merely symbolically representative of things, actions, concepts, etc. A word is not the thing it represents. When I say the word "chair", a chair doesn't fly out of my mouth, only sounds that another person will recognize as representing the concept of an object that one sits upon. What kind of chair the hearer pictures in their mind could depend on many things. But the letters that make up the word, arranged in the order they appear, the sounds that are made in saying the word - none of these are a chair; it's just a word we use to represent an object. Consider another meaning, such as in the compound word, "chairman". It is not a man acting as an object to be sat upon, nor some hybrid creature that is part chair and part man. It comes from the idea of a chair representing a position of authority, similar to the throne (the fancy, elevated chair) of a king. Highly conceptual. If you have good organizational skills, you might be asked to chair a committee. So is one of these the 'real' meaning of the word 'chair'? No, all usages are valid because all are popularly accepted meanings. All of these usages have real meaning, in that they all succeed in conveying a thought that is understood by the hearer/reader. None is more or less "real" than the next. None are an actual thing, action, or concept; all merely represent a thing, action, or concept.

We didn't borrow it. Here, educate yourself already:

http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay&allowed_in_frame=0

You're acting as if there was some conspiracy among gay people to 'steal' the word, which is just plain ridiculous. One cannot borrow or steal something that isn't owned, and words are not owned (with the notable exception of trademarks). There is no conspiracy involved in this. It's simply people using a word in a new way, and other people having an "a-ha" moment in which they get the other person's meaning in using the word that way, and this usage spreading, building in popularity. Blaming gay people for a shift in the word's meaning is positively ridiculous.

I'm not responsible for people avoiding the use of a word which might be misunderstood because of a shift in meaning. Boo frickin' hoo. If you want it to have the "original" (though not actually original) meaning of 'happy', then use it that way and try to make that meaning popular enough to supplant its usage representing same-sex orientation.

Nonsense. Words evolve different meanings because humans are creative and able to grasp many shades of meaning. I will grant you that meaning can also shift from grammatical 'errors' (such as using 'less' to mean 'fewer'), but that's not the case with 'gay'. You only characterize it as 'misuse' because you don't like homosexuality.

Or maybe you should try studying the etymology of the words whose meanings you're attempting to discuss. Obviously you don't know the origin of the barbarously hybrid word 'homosexual', either. It was invented by mashing together roots from Greek and Latin words. When compared to the etymology of the word 'gay', 'homosexual' comes out being downright artificial. It is not a 'proper' word in any sense of that term, its long use in a clinical setting notwithstanding.

I also detest the plural form 'gays', but acknowledge that this usage has become more or less accepted by many people. I am not 'a gay'; I am a gay person. But whatever - that battle is long lost. If I have to choose a 'properly' descriptive term, then I prefer "same-sex oriented", though it's a mouthful.

Or maybe people can grow up already and stop whining about how the 'evil gays' are 'corrupting the English language'.

BS, I never said any such thing. The point is that your original statements were made to stereotype gay people as a whole. Don't make idiotic generalizations, and I won't feel compelled to call out your error in doing so.

I think you are clueless. Look, if "a gay person" does something, that doesn't mean it's something that all or most gay people do. If you see a dog that is small, white, and yappy do you assume that all dogs are small, white, and yappy? That's how little sense your attempts to stereotype gay people make.

 

So homosexuals are gays? And the word gay has now three meanings:
1. merry - cheerful - jolly - joyful - blithe - mirthful
2. homosexuals
3. Rubbish

Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual.
The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy". The term's use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1] In modern English, "gay" has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to males, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality.
By the end of the 20th century, the word "gay" was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex.[2][3] At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

It is very simple, you are making it complex because you are so gay

This is one reason why gays have difficulty in distinguishing left from right they are full of complicated excuses.

I am trying to learn the actual term for gays why not called them homosexuals why gays? I have learn that it seem according to you there are no racist gays in the gay community although gays are more critical (another term of racist and discrimination) against fellow gays.

Why not just use the "legal' scientific term is there one? Is it homosexual? or he-she and she-he? example; Joe is a he-she.

Again it is you who claim that gays are evil and corrupting the English language not I.

My point was very straight forward but you chose to go on defensive and make it something what it is not.

Did I say all gays are racist? No I said there are gay racist, why can't you just admit that there are racist in the homosexual community instead of going on the defensive implying that there are no racist in homosexual community and such racism only exist in the straight community.

 

Yes, those are commonly used meanings for the word. I fail to see why you're confused by this. Many words have multiple possible meanings. Which one applies depends on the context in which the word is used.

Dictionaries differ as to which meaning is considered primary, but actual usage determines this. It may very well come to pass that the derogatory connotation of "rubbish" will eventually surpass the others.

So advocates preferred the use of 'gay' versus 'homosexual'. Have you bothered to understand why? Are you able to understand that advocates don't always get their way - that the definition could only actually shift by people agreeing to apply a particular usage? Or are you still bent on whining that 'homosexuals' have 'barrowed' the word 'gay'?

In other words, you can't make a cogent response, so you've resorted to baiting.

More idiotic generalization and denigration. Do you really think that offering insult in lieu of an actual argument is persuasive to any but the most feeble-minded?

In other words, ignoring the fact that words are symbolic representations whose meanings evolve as a product of humans' creative use of language, which means there is no "actual term", only words that people agree to assign that meaning; that the meaning of terms can be transitory.

The old saying is true, "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink". Likewise the saying that you should "never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig".

Why call them 'homosexual' and not 'gay'? Merely because you prefer the former word or think it more 'proper' despite it being an abominable, artificial mash up Greek and Latin roots? Merely because you dislike that the meaning of the word 'gay' has shifted from your preferred definition to other usages? I'm trying to find a reason to care. Nope, nothing there.

It seems you haven't actually learned anything (which requires an effort you're either unable or unwilling to make). I never said or implied that there are no racist persons of same-sex orientation. They exist, but don't misconstrue that to mean that gay = racist or some similar bullcrap. I expect the level of racism is probably about the same among gay people as it is among straight people. It would be nice to think that gay people are less inclined to be racists, but I'm not persuaded that this is necessarily true.

Criticism = racism now? Hardly. For starters, being gay isn't a race. For another, I have experienced far more criticism of my being gay from straight people than I have criticism from my "fellow gays".

Moreover, this is just a repetition of your previous idiotic generalization about gay people. Your purpose isn't to learn or understand, but to demonize. It doesn't take a mind reader to see exactly what you're up to here.

That would be no, no, and no. While 'homosexual' has enjoyed longstanding use in a clinical context, that doesn't make it a "legal term" or a "scientific term", uninformed thinking to the contrary notwithstanding.

Not a claim I made, and it's clearly the implication of your arguments. Why not take ownership of the things you say instead of trying to run away from them when challenged?

If your point was straightforward, it wouldn't have been challenged. And yes, I will defend myself from people who are initiating an offensive against gay people. That would be you. No point in you trying to pretend otherwise.

Assigning to me a claim I never made. Here's what you actually said:

You didn't merely say that there are gay people who are racist. Of course there are. No, what you did was generalize, assigning a number of negative traits to ALL gay people in a bare effort to demonize them by perpetuating false stereotypes.

Don't waste our time with trying to protest your innocence here. You said what you said, and what you said was meant to inspire hate toward gay people. Own your actions.

 

There is no generalization, no hate only you see it that way because you strongly feel that straight people are bad.Your actions your consequences.

 

How is this not a generalization?

Then what was your purpose in making the quoted comment? Be honest, for once.

I very much doubt that, but people are certainly free to make up their own minds.

That's a load of bullcrap. I don't think that straight people are bad. Now you're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. I do think that some people are hateful and controlling. Gay or straight makes no difference in that observation.

Such weaseling. You're the one that made the generalization. That was your action, and you're facing the consequences thereof.

Squirm all you like, but I maintain that it's fairly obvious what you're up to.

 

Just listen to your self, a simple discussion about the word "gay" you trun around and start attacking "us" the straight people of being racist, and homophobic denying that racism exist everywhere including in gay community.
And now you are saying we are not all racist just like there are racism in the gay community at the same time being hateful for having such as dicussion.

Yes, I am being honest to myself with out any malice, you on the other hand have demostrated immidiate offense because you believe that such discussion is anti gay.

 

You first.

Laughable. There was no 'discussion'; you whined about gay people "barrowing" the word 'gay', and I set the record straight on how language evolves. Seemingly none of which you've absorbed.

Maybe in your alternate reality. Meanwhile, it's plain for anyone who can read to see that I have not attacked straight people. I have simply responded to your BS in particular. I have not denied the existence of racism; I've said that I expect it exists in about the same amount in the gay population as the straight population. If you think that's somehow an attack on straight people and a denial of racism existing within the gay population, then you must be speaking a completely different brand of English from the rest of the people on this forum.

I never denied the existence of racism within the gay community, so you can stop spouting that lie. What I did point out, and will do so again, is that you tried to stereotype all gay people as racists. Obviously if you had any evidence of the things you assert about me, you would post it for further discussion. But you've got nothing, because I never said or implied the things with which you're trying to tar and discredit me. So put up, or shut up.

You aren't being honest with anyone, yourself included.

You attempted to stereotype gay people by saying that...

So stop trying to lie your way out of it. Own you actions. Own your words. I will continue to repost them to refute each subsequent denial you make until it sinks in and you finally admit it, recant it, or slink away in silence. I'm simply not having your (*)(*)(*)(*). Your words are captured in black and white, and you cannot deny them or what they mean, no matter how hard you try to make people believe you weren't being viciously anti-gay in saying what you said.

 

Continue to repost that is good this way we can then truthfully have an honest discussion a discussion that you have chose to muddle it with your hatred and deep resentment towards straight people. The immidiate disucssion about gay or the word gay to you is hatred towards gays while at the same time you deny that gays use that word to discriminate and degrade other gays as well. This is a simple start, do you accept that gays use the word "gay" to degarde and discriminate fellow gays or not?

 

An accusation which you remain utterly incapable of backing up with any credible evidence whatsoever.

No, just hateful in the way YOU presented it. YOU and YOUR stereotyping and whining are what's at issue.

I do not deny that some gay people use the word 'gay' in a derogatory manner to discriminate and degrade other gay people. I do very much deny that there is any validity to YOUR generalization that...

Your statement, as written and quoted word-for-word above, does not refer just to some gay people. It is very much a blatant attempt to denigrate all gay people. "gays" used without any sort of modifier implies the entire population of gay people, or something typical of that population. You were very clearly attempting to defame, degrade, and negatively stereotype us as a group in making such a statement. Admit it. Just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tell the truth already, damn it!

No. Because the way you've worded it is a repetition of the attempt to generalize about the whole gay population. I utterly reject such a ridiculous generalization. You can't support the assertion you're making. If you could, you already would have. I will agree that some gay people do that, but not all or most, and not as an affirmation that it's typical behavior among gay people.

So you have no point, except to denigrate us with a negative stereotype. And I'm very, very, very close to just giving up the effort to educate you and deciding to ignore you going forward. Now give me a reason to think that you have a shred of integrity left, or I'm going to do exactly that.

 

Gay to me means what it has always has meant-- happy, exuberant, care free. I do not attribute gay with anything to do with ones sexual preference. I reject the "gay" movement and their notion that they are the norm when in fact they statistically are not. I reject the notion that a homosexual is being discriminated against or is being denied their "civil rights" because they chose not to marry as defined by law... just as many homosexuals reject the notion that they can have all the same "rights" as married couples with the use of civil unions. We are all unique individuals...learn to accept all of us.

 

I do accept everyone. I'm not however under any obligation to accept every opinion as reasonable, factual, logical, etc. Nor am I obligated to refrain from criticizing opinions and actions that I find reprehensible.

You're certainly free to reject whatever you like.

 

I suppose it would be beyond your comprehension, that everyone has the right to base their opinions on their life`s experiences?

 

I suppose you're free to make such asinine assumptions about me, but that doesn't make such statements true. People can base their opinions on whatever they want, and obviously life experiences are likely to play a huge role. None of which makes biased opinions based on anecdotal experiences correct in the assumptions made.

It's a matter of basic logic. That which is true of a particular individual is not necessarily true of other individuals with whom that first individual shares some common but unrelated trait. Moreover, if someone's initial impression of another is negative, they may focus more on future experiences that reinforce that negative image while ignoring positive examples that contradict it. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard "you're not like other queers" I'd have a tidy sum of money. And that's only if the person in question is able to look past my being gay; there's no shortage of people who can't and will therefore make ridiculous assumptions about me, cherrypick for things that they think reinforce their negative opinions of homosexuality, and dismiss anything good a gay person does - because they only see them as "a gay", not as a person who happens to have a same-sex orientation. It's as if that one trait is the only one that matters to some people.

So basing one's opinion on life experiences alone, especially in light of how easy it is for people to form and maintain their personal biases, and to refuse to recognize the limitations of their own experiences, and then call that prejudice one's "right" as if it somehow excuses it, is ridiculous.

Sure, you've a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts, and no right at all to demand that I must treat your opinions as representing the truth of any matter.

 

Good to see you`re not "like other queers, because peope are tired of whining, self obsessed primadonnas.