CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There's a difference between "should" and "allowed".
Should they? Free country, their choice.
Be allowed to? Of course, as I said, free country.
I use gay to describe things that are lame, usually. No one says lame, though, so gay is just a better word. Considering that it has about 3 other definitions, adding lame really isn't that big a deal to me. I mean, gay means happy, colorful and homosexual. And with modern youth, it can also mean lame/stupid.
"I use gay to describe things that are lame, usually. No one says lame, though, so gay is just a better word. Considering that it has about 3 other definitions, adding lame really isn't that big a deal to me. I mean, gay means happy, colorful and homosexual. And with modern youth, it can also mean lame/stupid."
Your argument in logical form:
1. We need a commonly-word to describe "lame" things. (Premise)
2. The word "lame" is rarely used (Premise)
3. Therefore, we need a new, more commonly-used word to describe "lame" things (from 1,2)
4. The word "gay" is commonly-used (Premise)
5. Therefore, we should use the word "gay" to describe things previously described as "lame" (from 3,4)
My counterexample illustrates that your argument is built on invalid reasoning:
1. We need a commonly used word to describe "mortifying" things (Premise)
2. The word "mortifying" is rarely used (Premise)
3. Therefore, we need a new, more commonly-used word to describe "mortifying" things (from 1,2)
4. The word "straight" is commonly-used (Premise)
5. Therefore, we should use the word "straight" to describe things previously described as "mortifying" (from 3,4)
This counterexample follows identical logical form to your argument, but as you can see, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, regardless of their truth value. Thus the argument is invalid. There are several reasons why the conclusion does not follow logically:
A. Why should we choose the word "straight" to describe things that used to be called by the rarely used word "mortifying"? Any number of other words would work. The choice seems arbitrary.
B. the word "straight" already has several meanings (e.g., referring to an angle of zero degrees, or a heterosexual person), but it is not the only word with several meanings already, so why not choose another?
C. Because the word "straight" has one connotation that defines a group of people based on sexual orientation, it might be offensive or hurtful to heterosexuals if we used the word "straight" to mean "mortifying", which means "causing extreme shame or embarrassment".
Incidentally, "mortification" is what people who willfully use the word "gay" in a derogatory sense should probably feel. Check out my argument on the "no" side of this debate for an explanation of how using the word "gay" in a derogatory sense hurts people.
I'm not saying we HAVE to do anything. My logic is built on the fact that it's OKAY that this is what it has become. The youth (which I guess I'm still part of) use this expression commonly to describe lame or stupid things, and that's okay for w/e reasoning. Words are words and we decide what their impact may be.
It might be "OK" from the point of view of the law, or from the point of view that we can ascribe meanings to words however we want. I don't disagree with this.
However, when you are changing the meaning of a word that describes a group of people, and using it to represent a synonym for "bad" or "stupid", It doesn't seem to be okay from the standpoint of compassion for our fellow human beings. You have tagged your arguments with "yes, its not hurting any body." If you want to see why this is not so, check out my argument on the other side where I provide evidence that it does indeed hurt people.
I like that you are standing up for free speech, but I think you'll agree that free speech should not come at the expense of hurting people for no reason.
I consider hurt to be physical. I don't give a shit about emotions, they're merely restrictions on intellect (usually, obviously they do good in the art world).
The mere fact is that Homosexuals shouldn't just monopolize the term gay just because they feel like it. The next generation has taken the word, just how they took the word. They can either get used to it or keep on bitching, but that really isn't going to change the mind of Generation Y or Z.
"I don't give a shit about emotions, they're merely restrictions on intellect"
Would you agree that my counterexample to your argument above was interesting and intellectually rigorous, even if you disagree with it? If so, you should know that the reason I wanted to present that argument to you was because of emotion. Without emotion, I would not have been able to construct that rational argument because I would have had no motivation to do so.
Emotions have an important place in our ability to relate to other human beings, on our creativity, and our ability to be whole human beings. Check out Seymour Epsteins's Cognitive-Experiential-Self-Theory (CEST) for an interesting psychological theory which explains the inter-related nature of reason and emotion. Each is crippled without the other.
But being offended by words is ILLOGICAL. It is letting your emotions take over, causing bad shit to happen.
We all have emotions, it's natural. It's what makes shit like sex and shitting feel good. But we MUST use logic to make sure that those emotions don't regulate our decision making. Decisions must be made based on logic first, and emotion second.
Does a word cause REAL (not emotional) harm to someone? No, so then it is not bad.
I wonder why you don't respond to or try rebutting the points I make, but just continue to repeat the same assertions? That would make for a more interesting and substantive debate, in my opinion. That's why I keep responding to the specific things you say, anyway. Have you had time yet to read the article on micro-aggressions I posted?
"Does a word cause REAL (not emotional) harm to someone? No, so then it is not bad."
Okay, so your position on harm is that if it's not physical, it's not really harm. So then, If I were to somehow manage to steal all the money from your bank account, you don't think I'd be harming you? After all, I wouldn't have hurt you physically.
If your response to what I just said is that the money you have affects the quality of your physical life, and therefore my stealing of it harms you, then you have fallen into my trap, because emotions affect the quality of our physical lives,as well as our ability to make good decisions. Science has demonstrated this with a high degree of consensus.
only if you LET emotions effect the quality of your life, sure. But I don't. People can say countless shit and it won't actually do anything to me... why? Because one can only LET those words hurt them.
If you steal my money, I CAN'T buy food or things. You have deprived me of the ability to do so. If you call me a name, I won't mind it, because I'm not some irrational dumb ass who gets pissed at words. Those words have NO EFFECT if I DON'T LET THEM. I'm trying to push this as hard as possible into your head. It ALL DEPENDS ON THE OFFENDEE. Not on the offender. But if you steal money, you have deprived me of something physically that limits what I am able to do in life.
"I'm trying to push this as hard as possible into your head. "
For someone who trumpets the value of rationality, You have yet to even attempt a logical proof or show a shred of evidence for your opinions. On the other hand, I have provided you with both logical proofs and scientific evidence. You claim you are trying to "push" something into my head. You would have a much easier time if you supported your positions.
I might be willing to accept those claims more easily if I hadn't studied a vast body of cognitive-neuroscience and psychological literature that indicates the important role of emotions in our lives.
"because I'm not some irrational dumb ass who gets pissed at words."
Have you even been looking at my arguments? I am presenting them in a pretty cool, rational way, and unlike you, I have refrained from angry rhetorical name-calling or typing in all capitalized letters, both of which you have used in your most recent post. What does this say about how rational each of us is?
Please, show me some evidence that psychological harm does not inhibit a person's life. That does not mean tell me more of your opinions. It means show me a scientific study or a carefully thought-out proof or something.
You act like I'm saying "words don't hurt people's feelings".
I think I've made it quite clear that I understand that pussies get their feelings hurt pretty easily... no one's refuting that.
What I've said about a thousand times which you're not getting is that that is gay. I've been called things... I don't throw a bitch fit over it. Why? Because I am one of the few people in this world who realize that a word can't actually do anything unless I let it. If someone steals from me or chops my arm off, there is a permanent effect that I could not stop. If someone calls me a dipshit, I can either LET IT bother me or not. Your scientific research is nice and all, but it's pretty irrelevant to what I'm saying.
I can copypasta some wiki pages for you... but it won't really be relevant either.
The only thing you've managed to prove to me so far is that you have no clue what "reason" and "logic" mean. If you think things like science are irrelevant to factual discussions, then how can you call yourself logical?
okay, so you have failed to rebut me at all and don't even seem to understand the point I've been trying to make to you.
Every post you have made has shown that you have no idea what I've been saying. You've misinterpreted everything and decided to post discussions on the effectiveness of words on the weak minded (most people) instead of actually talking about what I WAS FUCKIN' SAYING.
It's sad that you aren't trolling, because this is one of the worst arguments i've gone against (mister guy was worse than you, though, so be happy).
Of course I understand the point you're making. This is your point: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words may never harm me." I know that's a simplification, but it's the essence of what you're getting at, right? You know that words can hurt people's feelings, but for you, that is only a sign of personal/intellectual weakness, and you think that people shouldn't care about something that hurts their feelings but doesn't have to affect their lives. I get it, man. You don't have to be so nasty about it.
Ya see, you should have stopped it there, because that supports my point completely. None of the definitions of gay = lame, because it is a new definition that the next generation has come up with.
The very fact that ALL YOUNG PEOPLE use the term to refer to something they find lame shows you how homosexuals no longer have a monopoly on the word. Or at least, shouldn't be allowed to. Stop holding so tightly unto the word, because frankly, young people don't give a shit about your feelings.
"The very fact that ALL YOUNG PEOPLE use the term to refer to something they find lame shows you how homosexuals no longer have a monopoly on the word."
All Young people use the term "gay" to describe "lame" things? That's false. I'm young, I don't use the word that way. Hence, your argument is unsound.
Well first let's be clear as to who those "young people" are.
In my experience, they are teenage heterosexual boys, who feel the need to assert their heterosexuality by distancing themselves from all things "gay".
So, when they say that something is "gay", they don't mean "lame"... what they mean is that the subject/activity/object described is something that "gay people would do", and therefore it's something "lame" or negative or something that a straight boy shouldn't do no matter what.
So let's not pretend that they have given the word a new definition... They use the word with the exact same definition, but in a way that is supposed to be derogatory.
When someone says that "Transformers was gay", they're not trying to somehow say it was homosexual.
It seems you're trying to read the minds of people who AREN'T YOU. Are you suggesting that you know more about me than I do? Because I have called the movies Transformers and Transporter 3 gay.
As I keep on saying, homosexuals can't create some monopoly on the term gay. It wasn't always their term; hell, it's still used in the former definitions to this day. It's selfish, if you ask me.
So from the thousands of words in the English language, you and other people like you, just happened to choose the word "gay" to describe the things you find "lame"?
Am I understanding this wright? Are you implying that this is a coincidence? That it has nothing to do with the fact that this word, in our times, is primarily used to describe homosexuality?
because of it's use towards homosexuality itself? no. Now, the very FIRST few people to do so may have had these intentions, but let's face it, the younger generation is much less homophobic than the older generation yet they are the ones who use the term.
If you think I'm a homophobe for saying this word... okay. But as I said, I'm pretty sure I know myself way better than you or others do.
Having worked at a college for a couple of years now, I would like to share with you some of the conclusions I and all the other teachers have come to about the youngsters using the word "gay" in a derogatory fashion.
First of all, they are always boys. Boys between the ages of 13-16. Boys who have a tendency to want to declare to the entire world how straight they are. And they do so not just by using the word "gay" as a derogatory adjective, but by other means as well, such as talking about girls as if they are sex objects, always mentioning breasts etc etc. It's like they are desperate to assert their heterosexuality.
Now, whenever the subject of calling things "gay" has been discussed with these boys, either by the principal or the head teachers, it always emerges that the boys used the word "gay" to imply that the activity or object being described is something that a gay person would do, and therefore a straight boy should stay away from. Some of them proclaim that they used it to mean "lame", but very soon after, they also admit that "it's lame because it's what a gay would do". So the use of this word is, in my two year experience, always connected with homophobia.
Please note that no girl has ever been found to have used the word "gay" in a derogatory fashion. It's always immature little boys who feel that they have to slate gays in order to be seen as hard-macho-boys. Surely, if this word had a completely different meaning that is not related to homophobia, as you say, then girls would use it as well. But they don't.
Let me give you an analogy here. What if white people decided to use the word "black" or "nigger" to describe all things "illegal". What if they said things like "don't steal you idiot, that's black!" or "I would never rape a girl, that's nigger/black". After all, according to you, why should black people have the monopoly on the word "black", wright? And you are indeed wright. Why should they? It also describes a color, a mood etc etc. so why not also use it to describe illegal activity? To use your argument, maybe the very FIRST few people to do so may have had bad intentions, but let's face it, the younger white generation is much less racist that the older generation, so it's OK for them to use "black" to mean "illegal". Wright?
Well, black is used to describe evil things, and black people have complained about its use.
Fortunately for the politically incorrect, we've proven to them that they don't have a monopoly over the word. So we are still able to use black to describe evil or bad things.
As for gay, that's a nice "study" you've made, but it sounds a LOT like bullshit to me. Girls where I come from (and I live in a pretty liberal city) say gay as well, and MOST of us call something gay just because it's something that we find lame... we hardly use it to actually describe something that a homosexual would do.
But go ahead, live in your judgment world where everyone HAS to be the way you describe them just so you can further your ideology.
You know what sounds like bullshit to me? Your pathetic excuses at trying to justify your bullying ways.
It always amazes me, how the first excuse to come out of a bully's mouth, is that it's the victim's fault for allowing themselves to get hurt!
Talk about bullshit!
Out of all the words in the English language you just couldn't help yourself but pick the word "gay" to describe things you find "lame"! Using the word LAME to describe things that are "lame" just wasn't enough for you! Hell no! We need another one! Yes. Let's see. OH I KNOW.... LETS USE "GAY" TO MEAN LAME! It doesn't matter that an entire group of people are going to be upset and hurt by it. It doesn't matter that "gay" is also part of some people's identity. NO. FUCK THAT. FROM NOW ON IT ALSO MEANS LAME! Yeah... But don't you dare accuse me of being homophobic!
I like how you accused me of trying to read the minds of people who aren't me, and then you came up with this cherry: MOST of us call something gay just because it's something that we find lame... we hardly use it to actually describe something that a homosexual would do. Who is "we" and how the hell do YOU know what the rest of "we" thinks? Talk about hypocrisy!
I would assume that the people who do the same thing as me are thinking like me, but for your sake, I'll apologize.
And you know what, fuck you. If this is really how you will debate, fine. I don't fuckin' care anymore if this is how you will decide to make a point, cool. Hell, I'll even go along with it, just for the fun of it.
I'll even support your view.
List of un-pc things to say which I will say because I'm just some homophobic faggot:
balls
dick
cunt
tits
nigger
faggot
queer
AIDS victim
retard
midget
blacky
black cunt nigger dick
purple cunt
cunt fag
balls fag
anus licker
shit cunt dick balls
the gay
bitch hole
asshole
cunthole
dickhole
tongue in ass
big stupid faggot with a fat head and gay shit in his brain, cause he's stupid, gay and a faggot.
I wonder how many people died from the words I've said. I hope a lot of them were queers and minorities and Jews and shit, cause I'm just some homophobic bully, right? That's why I treat everyone like an asshole. I'm so racist, I hate the ENTIRE human race, even people of my own race. I hate atheists and theists. I hate EVERY FUCKIN' PERSON IN THE WHOLE FUCKIN' WORLD. I've done horrible, selfish things to people because I felt that they deserved it. Not because they were of a certain race, but because I am borderline Sociopath.
So call me a homophobic bully, it's really a step up from being a Nihilist Misanthrope... right?
1. "But being offended by words is ILLOGICAL. It is letting your emotions take over, causing bad shit to happen."
2. "Does a word cause REAL (not emotional) harm to someone? No, so then it is not bad."
3. "only if you LET emotions effect the quality of your life, sure. But I don't. People can say countless shit and it won't actually do anything to me... why? Because one can only LET those words hurt them."
4. "If you call me a name, I won't mind it, because I'm not some irrational dumb ass who gets pissed at words. Those words have NO EFFECT if I DON'T LET THEM. I'm trying to push this as hard as possible into your head. It ALL DEPENDS ON THE OFFENDEE. Not on the offender."
5. "I never refuted that people get their feelings hurt. It's part of the very problem with humanity. duh. What I said is that it's RETARDED that people do... as i keep on saying, words are merely words."
6. "I think I've made it quite clear that I understand that pussies get their feelings hurt pretty easily... no one's refuting that."
7. "I've been called things... I don't throw a bitch fit over it. Why? Because I am one of the few people in this world who realize that a word can't actually do anything unless I let it."
.
Seeing as you have thrown a fit over me calling you a pathetic bully, it is safe to assume, from your own words, that you are an ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL DUMB ASS, RETARDED, PUSSY, who throws a fit everytime someone calls you a name that pisses you off.
I was merely giving an argument the same way that you did so that you would know what place you have put me in...
You decided to become irrational and just go to insults while I was trying to have a proper debate. Since that happened, I decided to do the same thing (except, mine actually had a point to it which you obviously missed).
how sad though, you seem to actually think you got me, pride is the worse sin, ya know... lulz.
You don't seem to understand why people use the word "gay" as a negative, which was my point.
Happy does not mean lame. Colorful does not mean lame. When they say gay to mean lame, they mean homosexuals are "lame," or whatever. (See Jake's post).
And at 21, I think of myself as fairly young. And I know many young people who do not use the word as a negative, including myself.
We don't care if there are more definitions to the word. We just don't want those definitions to be evident disses toward us. Because that's what it is.
Well, if gay were to actually be a diss, it would refer to it's original term meaning joyful, festival color.
Stop being selfish and acting as if this one word belongs so dearly to you. It doesn't, and it's quite gay that everyone in the world has to make such a big deal when a new definition arises for a word.
Hell, the term gay isn't even used to describe what would actually be "gay" things... Bruno was described as vile... not gay. But, The Final Destination was described as gay.
Tell me... which to you is more gay? Bruno or The Final Destination?
Gay is not only used to mean "lame" it can have many common uses when used as a derogatory adjective. Common does not make it right, though.
Bruno the character was gay. Bruno the movie was offensive and vulgar.
I've never seen Final Destination, but I assume it would be lame.
Oh gosh! Look at that. Where I could have used the word "gay" to describe something, I used the word "lame." Hmmm....I almost didn't even noticed that I had done that. It's almost as if using an unoffensive term was.... easy.
I am a young person and I find that using gay as lame is hurtful..
Also why must we call things "Lame" i mean the origins of that word is to describe disabled people, so in turn you are not only creating a negative connotation for the word gay but also a term used for disabled individuals.
We should all be more careful about the language that we use. They are a powerful thing.
Heya, Pyg... Maybe you are speaking for yourself, but certainly not all young people.
The harm lies in the very nature of your line of thinking. Gays are discriminated against, tortured and murdered just for being gay world wide. To think that there is no offense is to not be thinking.
Exactly. I'm glad someone else finally decided to chime in. We have the freedom to be hateful and hurtful if we want to, but why would we freely choose to hurt people when it would be just as easy to use a different word and avoid causing harm? That's just malicious and nasty.
The whole point of insulting somebody is to use insulting language.
Its up to the individual to be insulted by being called 'gay'. Nearly all men take it as an insult. (homosexuals and their supporters aren't men).
It has several meanings aswell as plain old gay. It can mean lame, stupid, ugly, silly and in its own right has become a word similar to those.
If you want to insult somebody using derogatory language, you use words that are perceived as derogatory. It's wrong to be gay and so its wrong to be called gay and so calling somebody gay to offend them is a good way of going about it.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay but I don't believe gay people are different. In your logic then, women are different too because they're not men. Muslims are different because they're not Christian...
Honestly, I think that people need to stop being so sensitive. Sure, it can be offensive, but these days, calling something "Gay" doesn't mean you're calling it homosexual, it just means that you're calling it stupid/lame. It's like how Bass has two meanings. "Gay" has become a homograph in the english language (at least... as far as pop culture slang says so).
This kind of reasoning is dismissive of the harm it causes to a minority group that we share the world with. There is a gross disconnect on the part of anyone who uses the word to mean anything other than to describe being happy or to describe being homosexual. Even the long standing use of what should mean happy to identify a homosexual person is derogatory, yet it is firmly established and at least there is no inherent insult (yet, it deeply implies "different from what is normal"). If you hold firm to the type of thinking that the color blue is for boys and that pink is for girls and use "gay" to mean "lame" in your everyday speech, I urge you to consider that the world and the use of "gay" in this context is far more complex than the consideration you are giving it. What might be an acceptable use for you personally is actually hurting others. While we live is a world where a teenager is killing himself for being homosexual an average of once a week and a man is murdered for being homosexual an average of once a month (both rates are probably higher as this is only what gets reported), measurable harm is being done. To fail to recognize this and use the word to mean lame is to condone these deaths and murders.
Ok,most people will say that word gay can cause pain, bad affects on people's lifes, or even bad future affects on people's lifes. I can currently 15, a sophmore in high school. I am infact, a homosexual. I'll make a list of everything I see as see a reason. 1. Gay has been over used. By that I mean, people don't really call other's gay as much as you think anymore. Now they prefer more insulting things. Gay has been so used so many times, it's not as popular as a word to say now-a-days. 2. Not very insulting. By this you can take different points of veiws of this, examples: Calling a gay person a gay isn't very isulting at all, People can take it has it meaning happy, People don't see much as a insult thus going back to it being over used. 3. If you take away the word gay then accual gay people can't use the word as well. I have a rainbow armband that says gay on it. It's not offending anyone, infact it helps get me dates, and others just see me as a homosexual. 4. It makes things a little bit more diffcult. I mean as in, if that should be ok, or not ok, or is it even right? I have a shirt that says, gaymer. Most of you will find something wrong with that, http://gaymer.org/
gaymer.org is a gay video gamer support group. If you take gay as being a "bad" word. I will not be able to wear this shirt. Plus if I do, people will take into question ifthat shirt is "ok" or is it to "out there"
With all that into consideration, I guess it's up to you to decide if you want the word "gay" to be ok or not. Please try to see the point from both veiws before deciding what you think is right or not-right.
Thanks, sorry if there is any mis-spelled words, I'm using my bad labtop and the keys can get jammed a lot and it also won't let me use the spell check, so thank you for reading
The harm lies in the very nature of this line of thinking. Gays are discriminated against, tortured and murdered just for being gay world wide. To think that there is no offense is to not be thinking.
Honestly, what you just said is mean and heartless. It is the exact thing that people in my shoes are fighting against. You are the kind of people who "passively" discriminate. You wont do it to the victims face because that would make you look bad and tarnish your reputation of being a non hateful person. in reality, you are. Sorry to burst your bubble, but thinking, acting, and saying things like that only makes the argument stronger. You are directly supporting hate and making people who are gay feel like they can't be who they are without having to be hated on and treated like dirt.
thank you for your heart warming support for hate.
So this begs the question... Is it lame that one person could love a person of the same gender or lame that parts of society have an issue with it?
This post was actually kind of funny, but also somewhat at core of what is wrong with the lack of thought and consideration that that should go into issues that deplu affect gay people.
Yes. First of all, I don't care how derogatory the term is (i.e. D-go, n-gg-er, etc [hyphens added to avoid controversy, though I, personally, am not against it]); what does it matter: it's a word. Whether you say 'gay', 'homosexual', 'sexually different', 'pervert', or any other stupid politically correct (or incorrect) term, you are still getting the same meaning across. It's a controversial subject, if you choose it, be prepared for hatred.
P.S. Google 'Rev. Fred Phelps', the most extreme people on here aren't as bad as him.
I agree with terminator. I'm gay, and the fact that people use the word 'gay' in a derogatory sense doesn't bother me in the SLIGHTEST. Nor should it bother anybody else, because they should just accept that the english language is a very complex field, and the meaning of words are constantly changing and developing new connotations. I agree that this new use of the term 'gay' isn't helping to normalise homosexuality, nor is it showing it through rose tinted spectacles, but the point is, it's not something that MAJORLY affects gay people, to the extent where it makes them commit suicide. People being singled out and bullied at school because they are gay causes people to kill themselves, yes, but using the word gay as a casual and meaningless insult does NOT. Otherwise we'd have already heard about it by now. Try to change my mind ? You'll have to try very hard.
You may feel like it doesn't matter, but in reality there are many gay or bisexual individuals who won't come out because people still support such jargon. No, there are many gay people out there who are not flamboyant and feminine. And these gays are those who do not want to deal with the stigma str8 people force onto such a life style. Those who say that it is life and deal with it need to try thinking the way of "what gives the person the right to treat someone that way".
On the stand that the English language evolves constantly, it does because people are lazy and do not want to actually learn nor apply a vocabulary let alone gather the actual respect for an individual to think that they are really doing something that brings even more negative connotations to a lifestyle that is hard to begin with.
Those like ThePyg who use the word "gay" to mean "lame" are either willfully or inadvertently hurting other people in a way that is difficult to understand except as an expression of ignorance, homophobia, or a considerable emotional/social immaturity. I suppose the question of whether a person "should" use the word this way is pointless. As ThePyg aptly points out, free speech is important. People are free to hurt each other with their words if they wish to. However, I'm guessing that if they knew how hurtful this small act is, they would stop perpetrating it.
What we should ask instead is how we can help these insensitive and socially immature individuals develop their empathy and understanding of how their subtly hurtful words and actions, called "micro-aggressions" in the psychological literature, are harming homosexuals and other people in measurable, significant ways. The use of the word "Gay" in a derogatory sense qualifies as a micro-insult. To those who commit this offense, it might not seem like a big deal, but I want to stress that the damage done by this sort of act is well-documented and empirically verified. Here is an introductory link to information on micro-aggression:
Would you explain to me, and all other participants of this debate, why homosexuals are adversely affected by terms that denote their sexual preference, yet heterosexuals do not exhibit the same adverse reactions by terms that denote their sexual preference? Furthermore, would you also explain why heterosexuals must modify their mannerisms to be more acceptable of gays, yet homosexuals do not modify their mannerisms to be more acceptable of heterosexuals?
If homosexuality is both natural and genetic, then the gays have just as much right to be insulted by the term ‘gay’ as do blondes by the term ‘blond’. But, I suspect there is no empirically documented evidence that supports why blonds should not suffer the insult of being called blond. If blonds can learn to accept the use of “Blond” as a derogatory term, then why are homosexuals incapable of accepting ‘gay’ as a derogatory term; and as a consequence of such, the heterosexual is asked to refrain from using the term ‘gay’ as a derogatory term?
Seriously, if Blondes can learn to live with the derogatory usage of the term ‘blond’, then homosexuals can too learn to live with the derogatory usage of the term ‘gay’. And when the day arrives when gays can learn to cope with living in their genetically natural bodies (supposed), so too will be the day when homosexuals are not offended by the derogatory usage of the term ‘gay’.
"Would you explain to me, and all other participants of this debate, why homosexuals are adversely affected by terms that denote their sexual preference, yet heterosexuals do not exhibit the same adverse reactions by terms that denote their sexual preference?"
When does anyone use a word denoting heterosexuality to mean something negative? I guess I just don't understand this one. Maybe if you fill me in I can give a better answer.
"Furthermore, would you also explain why heterosexuals must modify their mannerisms to be more acceptable of gays, yet homosexuals do not modify their mannerisms to be more acceptable of heterosexuals?"
I didn't realize that there was an issue with homosexuals being unaccepting of heterosexuals. If there is such a problem, then homosexuals should definitely be courteous and accepting towards heterosexuals as well. If I said anything to suggest otherwise, then I was mistaken. Did I say anything like that?
"If blonds can learn to accept the use of “Blond” as a derogatory term, then why are homosexuals incapable of accepting ‘gay’ as a derogatory term; and as a consequence of such, the heterosexual is asked to refrain from using the term ‘gay’ as a derogatory term?"
I think you have a very strong point here. Assuming Homosexuality is as genetic as Blondness, why should gays have more trouble having their name associated with stupidity than blonds? I think the answer might be that gays have been systematically oppressed throughout much of history (many gays targeted in the holocaust, killed as sinners by religious fundamentalists, etc.), while blonds have not been discriminated against as a group to such an extent.
Sure, Blonds have been the butt of jokes for a while, but they're also typically White, and therefore members of a group that has historically been pretty dominant. I guess it seems to me that being joked about doesn't quite compare to being persecuted by Nazis and the like. Maybe that's why it's easier for them to accept it than it is for gays?
"Would you explain to me, and all other participants of this debate, why homosexuals are adversely affected by terms that denote their sexual preference, yet heterosexuals do not exhibit the same adverse reactions by terms that denote their sexual preference?"
When does anyone use a word denoting heterosexuality to mean something negative? I guess I just don't understand this one. Maybe if you fill me in I can give a better answer.
The terms that are descriptive or definitive (denotation or connotation) of both hetero-sexual behavior and homo-sexual behavior do not confer negativity. Any negativity that is conferred by the use of those terms is conferred only by the intent of the speaker. The terms themselves can not bare the burden of both a definition and an insult. (Pardon the compressed statements!)
I think we both can agree that the issue at hand is not a matter that is resolved by word meaning. The issue we are attempting to address is more appropriately resolved by not investigating the terms themselves, but rather by addressing the intent of the person using the terms. And as a consequence of such, my judgment is that homosexuals should care not about the usage of the word ‘gay’, but should rather care about the intent of the speaker.
Premises: The term ‘gay’ is not derogatory. Only the intent of the speaker is derogatory when the term gay is used outside its meaning. Yet, if someone does use the term outside of its meaning we cannot universally infer that derogation is intended.
My answer to my questions: Some homosexuals are easily offended by the illiterate usage of the term ‘gay’. Heterosexuals are not offended by the illiterate usage of terms that definitively denote their sexual behavior.
"Furthermore, would you also explain why heterosexuals must modify their mannerisms to be more acceptable of gays, yet homosexuals do not modify their mannerisms to be more acceptable of heterosexuals?"
I didn't realize that there was an issue with homosexuals being unaccepting of heterosexuals. If there is such a problem, then homosexuals should definitely be courteous and accepting towards heterosexuals as well. If I said anything to suggest otherwise, then I was mistaken. Did I say anything like that?
If you did assert anything that is similar to my question I am unaware of it. My request was spurred by my curiosity and assessment of your level-headed arguments.
The questions of gay-marriage and gay-adoption seem to be issues that are nearly irreconcilable. The gays want the straights to allow gay-adoption and gay-marriage, yet the gays will not accept the nature of heterosexuals that precludes their ability to accept gay-such and such. The underlying problem as evidenced by this is briefly summarized by affirming: Gays are accepting of heterosexuals until they can no longer accept the consequences of the heterosexual nature which negatively impacts the wishes of the gay populace. Yet, the heterosexual is the only party at fault.
"If blondes can learn to accept the use of “Blond” as a derogatory term, then why are homosexuals incapable of accepting ‘gay’ as a derogatory term; and as a consequence of such, the heterosexual is asked to refrain from using the term ‘gay’ as a derogatory term?"
I think you have a very strong point here. Assuming Homosexuality is as genetic as Blondness, why should gays have more trouble having their name associated with stupidity than blonds? I think the answer might be that gays have been systematically oppressed throughout much of history (many gays targeted in the holocaust, killed as sinners by religious fundamentalists, etc.), while blonds have not been discriminated against as a group to such an extent.
Sure, Blonds have been the butt of jokes for a while, but they're also typically White, and therefore members of a group that has historically been pretty dominant. I guess it seems to me that being joked about doesn't quite compare to being persecuted by Nazis and the like. Maybe that's why it's easier for them to accept it than it is for gays?
Having previously affirmed my position on the term ‘gay’ as a non-derogatory term, I want to address this question through the category of humor.
Blonde gays can readily laugh at blond jokes, but blond gays cannot readily laugh at gay jokes. As a culture, we accept the oftentimes very humorous jokes about dumb-blonds, but it is a taboo to consider the humor of gay-jokes. If gays can learn to laugh at themselves concerning blond-jokes, then gays can too learn to laugh at themselves concerning gay-jokes.
FTW, I don’t dislike gays because they are gay, I dislike the inconsistency and hypocrisy that is regularly associated with gay desires. The same is true when the parties are heterosexual.
You've done a good job of clarifying your questions, and I think most of your points are very well thought-out. I'll respond to a few points and answer what I perceive to be lingering questions or disputable statements.
"I think we both can agree that the issue at hand is not a matter that is resolved by word meaning. The issue we are attempting to address is more appropriately resolved by not investigating the terms themselves, but rather by addressing the intent of the person using the terms."
"The term ‘gay’ is not derogatory. Only the intent of the speaker is derogatory when the term gay is used outside its meaning. Yet, if someone does use the term outside of its meaning we cannot universally infer that derogation is intended."
That is fair, and I agree with you on these points. I also appreciate you having clarified the issue.
"My answer to my questions: Some homosexuals are easily offended by the illiterate usage of the term ‘gay’. Heterosexuals are not offended by the illiterate usage of terms that definitively denote their sexual behavior."
This point I have to dispute not because I think the statement is false on its own terms, but because I think it implies a falsehood and is therefore itself not applicable. While ""Some homosexuals are easily offended by the illiterate usage of the term ‘gay’" is clearly true, "Heterosexuals are not offended by the illiterate usage of terms that definitively denote their sexual behavior"" seems to imply that there are a significant frequency of cases when people use words that denote heterosexuality in a way that can be perceived as illiterate or offensive usages.This does not seem to be the case, as it is not general practice for any group, gay or straight, to use words like "straight" or "heterosexual" in such a way.
A brief proof to show this more clearly:
Let 'O' be an instance where a straight person is offended by an illiterate usage of the word "straight"
Let 'I' be an instance of someone illiterately using the word "straight" in an offensive way.
1. If 'O', then 'I'. (premise)
2. not-'I' (premise) (such cases don't happen with significant frequency)
3. Therefore, not 'O'. (Modus Tollens, 1,2)
So, the reason straight people are not offended is because there is nothing to be offended by. Hopefully I expressed that clearly, let me know what you think.
"Gays are accepting of heterosexuals until they can no longer accept the consequences of the heterosexual nature which negatively impacts the wishes of the gay populace. Yet, the heterosexual is the only party at fault."
This is an interesting point, but I don't think that it's necessarily accurate.
First, the thesis that accepting the wishes of gays is antithetical to the very nature of heterosexuals is easily disproved by the existence of many straight advocates of gay rights. Many of these so-called "straight allies" exist, including myself as an example. To cast the debate as "straights versus gays" is an inaccurate characterization of the situation.
Secondly, your argument could just as easily have applied to civil-rights era disputes over Black rights. In that case, enough of the dominant group (Whites) was eventually convinced of the value of the oppressed group's arguments to allow social progress to occur. While I am not saying that the gay rights movement is exactly the same, I think the historical precedent is enough to show that the conflict may not be as "irreconcilable" as you suppose. There was a time when the very idea of Black rights was laughable to almost all Americans. If things can progress from that point, than we should have reason to hope that things can go similarly with the less severe oppression faced by homosexuals compared to slavery-era Blacks.
"As a culture, we accept the oftentimes very humorous jokes about dumb-blonds, but it is a taboo to consider the humor of gay-jokes. If gays can learn to laugh at themselves concerning blond-jokes, then gays can too learn to laugh at themselves concerning gay-jokes."
I like this point, but I have to add a qualification. Humor is an important sign of maturity, especially when one is willing to laugh at himself or herself. I don't know, but I suspect that a lot of gays do laugh at gay-jokes, but probably more so when the joke is made by another gay person. Not to labor the point, but I have to refer again to the long history of murder and genocide faced by homosexuals and the lasting impact that must necessarily have on what is funny or not funny. Just as many who lost ancestors in the holocaust probably don't find Jew jokes very funny, especially when uttered by non-jews, Gays are probably a little less willing to laugh at gay jokes coming out of the mouths of straight people, who have (historically speaking) treated them in a way entirely analogous to the way Nazis treated Jews.
Now we are arriving at the crux of the question. Neither the term ‘gay’ nor ‘straight’ are inherently offensive. Yet, only some homosexuals are offended by a non-offensive term that connotes homosexuality. If offense is given, then it is because offense was taken, and when both the antecedent and consequent are predicated upon illiteracy, then neither the giver nor the taker has a valid argument. (I think you see where these premises will lead when the subject is heterosexuals.)
Hypothetical syllogism Modus Pollens:
If the illiterate usage of gay is offensive, some gays are offended.
The illiterate usage of gay is offensive.
Therefore some gays are offended.
(The remainder of your post is not un-important, I just think it leads in a direction that detracts from the question at hand. Albeit, in part, I am responsible for that, and if you would care to consider my replies to this post, I will oblige.)
I completely agree with you. (agreeing with Swryght(34)) This is my view completely.
Plus, in my opinion - as with using the term 'gay' to mean something 'lame' or 'stupid', using the term 'blond' to mean a 'dumb/stupid person' is wrong. This was just not the topic.
The difference, Lawnman, is that homosexuals suffer from hate-crimes on a daily basis. Whether you believe homosexuality to be nature or nuture, the thing is that throughout history homosexuals have been totally ignored, labelled insane or ill and although times have changed, gay men and women are often threatened with physical or verbal violence because of their sexuality! So it's completely different to being blonde. Are blondes attacked because of the colour of their hair? Nope, it's probably down to their sexuality, race or gender. My gay friend and his boyfriend received physical threats of violence almost every day because of the small town mentality of the people in their town.
Your argument is not a refutation of my argument. I think if you read my entire argument you will find that I criticize the response of gays in regards to the usage of 'GAY' as a derogatory term. I am not defending hate-crimes or denying the existence of such.
(I do appreciate your cool-headed attempt to refute. )
I have just read through and upvoted on both sides...............lol at it all.....i am hapilly gay and far from lame!..btw..im a bi-sexual woman who is non-active in my bi-sexuality...work that one out...lol. IT COMES DOWN TO EACH INDIVIDUAL SITUATION..........HOW IT IS APPLIED,AND HOW IT IS INTENDED!...I also understand what pyg was tring to say and he really wasnt trying to be derogatory towards gay people at all,only that everyone beat up on him, as tho he was, his attempt to explain, was trodden down to that view.,And so in his defense....As a few of my gay friends(not all of them but a few) also use the word "gay" to describe certain things as "lame".So as i said, it depends on the individual situation,how it is applied and how it is intended!Now will people just leave the word "gay" alone.....lol... As long as you dont apply it to hurt the feelings of a gay person or to belittle the existance of gay people then who cares,......you can use it til your hearts content.....Furthermore i just went into my laundry, kicked my lame washing machine and called it gay,....it didnt get upset....but i would not kick a gay person for being gay,...but i may however,... kick them for being lame....As for all this splitting of hairs, ive decided to take them all ,knit a wig,style it to my fashion,and where it with pride.
Did you know that Gay and Lesbian youth represent 30% of all completed suicide, meaning a successful suicide attempt by a gay teen every 5hrs and 48mins.
Now think about that every time you use the word "Gay" in a derogatory way.
Being apart of the so called "gay" community, I have been subjected to many cruel things that "str8" people do. I have had beer cans and bottles thrown at me, beat, harassed, and called numerous derogatory names. "Gay" people have been forced by str8 people to identify with these terms in a positive way to deal with the scrutiny and indignities we have went through. Do I personally identify as gay? NO. But str8 people do.
Being hatted against for nothing, being forced to view myself as a heinous thing, to be forced into a hell like no other, only to have people take another negative to me and those who are forced to identify with this word is beyond disrespectful.
The high school children who comment on this saying it is ok to do so are just that: Children. Many have no clue about what gays truly have to go through. The str8 children make this ok because they refuse to make the paradigm shift that shows how mean these actions are. Why? Because they would have to accept that they are wrong and that they are creating more hate.
Honestly, its pathetic. The swastika was a Hindu symbol of the sun and now has an irreversible association with the Nazis. The pink inverted triangle has been adopted as a positive image of "gay" pride. Now "gays" have to make "queer" and "fag" as a positive thing because str8 people will not change how they treat others, evidently because its to hard to treat another person with any measure of dignity, respect, or maturity.
I personally, absolutely hate when people use the word gay in that way, especially when they think its ok to do that. Some facts about this that there are plenty of kids that use gay as a derogatory term and other words that they commonly use to taunt and denigrate their peers - words that play on disability or racial differences. It’s said when you use gay as a derogatory term means that you are homophobic. “Gay” is a shortened or another term to describe someone’s sexuality (ex. Homosexual). Using the word gay to describe men who are not afraid to express their feelings or be romantic is a very narrow-minded. If a man doesn't have the typical macho man attitude and doesn't mind showing emotion, don't automatically assume that the person is gay.
