LGBT Smashers

[adumbrodeus]

while that may be true, the word "gay" to mean "homosexual" developed out of nothing as well. Words are just sounds made by the mouth or symbols made by the hand. they have no meanings save the meanings we give them. Whether or not the etymology of the phrase "that's so gay" has homosexually pejoritive roots or not, the fact is, those roots are, at the most, vestigial now. The current meaning of that phrase in no way reflects anything on homosexuality. I mean, hell, a ****** is a cigarette butt in Britan or a bundle of sticks for burning in older english, but somehow it came to be pejorative to homosexuals. The difference between that word and "gay", however, is the power it holds. To say something is "gay" when you mean it's cheap or stupid, you are saying only that it's cheap or stupid... but the word *** has an incredibly negative connotation because, in modern American English, at least, it has absolutelty no meaning besides it's heavily understood slang meaning which is intended to be nothing but derrogatory towards homosexuals.

That's why I think it's completely reasonable to draw the line there; a person can say "that's so gay" without ever intending to insult or even thinking about homosexuality in any sense, but when someone calls someone else a "***" there is absolutely no other meaning and it's meant to be an insult meaning, even if the person at whom the insult is aimed is NOT gay, the user of the insult suggests that being gay is something bad, something for which one can be insulted.

Anyway, my point is this: all language, but especially the english language, is very dynamic. As we go through the years, the meaning of words will change. Slang words are especially vulnerable to this steady change of meaning; some slang today may become standard vernacular tomorrow, some may change meaning entirely and still some others may become obselete and fade away. Regardless of what the eventual fate or tumultuous history of a word may be, the only meaning we can gain from it is the meaning which, to it, has currently been assigned. With the word in question, "gay," it currently has a few meanings. While the original meaning of "happy" is dated, the current meaning of "homosexual" and the current slang of "cheap or stupid" are just that: current. Both meanings are equally as correct for the word and both are completely different. Because the context is normally fairly discrete for both of them, it's usually very easy to determine which meaning is intended. The fact that the slang meaning is derived from the current meaning is of little importance since the bridge linking those two meanings is, as I said before, vestigial at best. When someone uses pretty much any word we use today, it likely has a history which involves it stemming forth from some other word and changing over time. We don't stop and question the meaning of every word we hear due to the roots from which they were derived. To do so in this particular case is, to me, a severe case of oversensitivity to our GBLT Identity. It's prudent to carefully pick our mountains to die on, and this really shouldn't be one of them. Get out there and crack down on those who legitimately mean us offense, sure, but the use of the phrase "that's so gay" is completely innocuous, so why give us a reputation for being loud and oversensitive just to fight it?

I'm sorry but you're incorrect, it's NOT vestigial, and will not be until one of the two uses of the word falls out of common usage, because we simply don't work like that linguistically.


Mentally we associate the multiple meanings of words, and carry over the definitions to the other things, that's why people can get away with fudging of words like "freedom", "democracy", and "terrorism" in the political sphere, because our mental compartmentalism of meanings of words just doesn't work.


Understand that it's not not even "stupid" that it's tied with, it's a vague "ungoodness" which subsists totally in society's rejection of homosexuals and homosexuality. The contexts it's usable in are too diverse for it to be merely "stupid". Like facism, it's because it's a recognized "bad thing" but society doesn't feel like fully defining what it means (LGBTA groups have a firm definition, but society at large feels like it refers to anything and anything different from the norm sexually, or not depending on the person), which allows it to be used as "ungood".


The point stands, unlike the slang term "gay" is firmly defined and gay is no longer used to mean "homosexual", or "gay" is no longer used to mean "ungood" they'll always be a linguistic subconscious dislike of homosexuals, because words have power, and linguistics have an enormous influence on how society views groups.


Gay groups might not think this is the right "mountain to die on", but linguistics is ultimately the heart of the problem gay groups are facing, and if you guys won't do it, allies who understand will.

 

[SuperBowser]

Understand that it's not not even "stupid" that it's tied with, it's a vague "ungoodness" which subsists totally in society's rejection of homosexuals and homosexuality.

I've come across this among many people at university and this is why I no longer use the word. I never want to even accidentally reinforce such a view.

 

[Timbers]

still not sure how people believe that calling a sweater gay is making the gay community look bad.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

still not sure how people believe that calling a sweater gay is making the gay community look bad.

me either, but i guess it just veiwed different from different people.

in other news Tigerwoods, the SWF one is on youtube now he wanted me to put the link to his vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0fDKKPNhuc&feature=channel_page

please don't be mad at me Azua or Xsyven. >.<

 

[deepseadiva]

If you were to say:

That sweater looks gay.

It means the same as:

That sweater looks bad. ...like gay people!

Thus making the association that gay = bad. It's subtle, and an association that makes us "look bad."

in other news Tigerwoods, the SWF one is on youtube now he wanted me to put the link to his vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0fDKKPNhuc&feature=channel_page

That's Tiger? Ha, not bad. ^^

 

[JigglyZelda003]

well if you put it that way meno then yes it can, but based on how you interperet it it could also mean that sweater is gay as in cheap or ugly, like MK. especially if you don't automatically associate badw/ gay people

 

[The.End]

Funny how the wording of 'gay' changes over time... I mean it's just a word right? Just a word that we take into account for the meaning of homosexual. A word that could mean stupid, a word that could mean...
On another note that might contradict whatever it is i just said:
It's like any other word that 'has meaning'. It's all psychological, whether you take it as an insult or not.
If the meaning of gay = bad then what would the meaning of gay to homosexual be? If they mean the same thing then people will only think that gay = homosexual = bad. It's all a matter of how people interpret the word gay, i guess. It's just a word after all...

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

I agree with MenoUnderwater but 2Pac didn't create the word n***uh (notice how there is no -er, there is -uh) for insults. It means homie. I'm sure you all the read the part where I stated that word to be used in a friendly way, not the other way around.

If you were to say:

That sweater looks gay.

It means the same as:

That sweater looks bad. ...like gay people!

Thus making the association that gay = bad. It's subtle, and an association that makes us "look bad."

It means something different to everyone. Imagine that a child tells his female classmate, "I wanna have sex with you." It looks HORRIBLE to us adults because we know what sex means. The child has a different definition however. One of the parents asks, "what did you mean when you said you wanted to have sex with my daughter?" The child cries and says, "I just wanted to kiss her! I really like her!"

See? To the child he thought that sex was just a kiss, but to us it meant much more. The child, in reality, could have been the real victim here.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

I'm sorry but you're incorrect, it's NOT vestigial, and will not be until one of the two uses of the word falls out of common usage, because we simply don't work like that linguistically.


Mentally we associate the multiple meanings of words, and carry over the definitions to the other things, that's why people can get away with fudging of words like "freedom", "democracy", and "terrorism" in the political sphere, because our mental compartmentalism of meanings of words just doesn't work.


Understand that it's not not even "stupid" that it's tied with, it's a vague "ungoodness" which subsists totally in society's rejection of homosexuals and homosexuality. The contexts it's usable in are too diverse for it to be merely "stupid". Like facism, it's because it's a recognized "bad thing" but society doesn't feel like fully defining what it means (LGBTA groups have a firm definition, but society at large feels like it refers to anything and anything different from the norm sexually, or not depending on the person), which allows it to be used as "ungood".


The point stands, unlike the slang term "gay" is firmly defined and gay is no longer used to mean "homosexual", or "gay" is no longer used to mean "ungood" they'll always be a linguistic subconscious dislike of homosexuals, because words have power, and linguistics have an enormous influence on how society views groups.


Gay groups might not think this is the right "mountain to die on", but linguistics is ultimately the heart of the problem gay groups are facing, and if you guys won't do it, allies who understand will.

we are in disagreement then. Whereas you see "That's so gay" as saying "That's lame (like gay people)" I see that, while that is how the saying arose, it now just means "That's lame/cheap"

The phrase is so mainstream that it now means what it means regardless of its roots. People who look at gay people as being "ungood" will look at us that way with or without the phrase and vice versa. Like I said, it's not ideal, but causing a big ruckus about it could irritate people giving them a vague idea that we are whiney and irritating which would, in turn, lower their opinions of us. Is it a stretch of an argument? maybe a bit, but I think the other side of the argument is a stretch as well. maybe less so but still. It's really nothing big. Still, Adam and I are going to try, from now on, to say "That's so HighSchoolMusical" instead of "That's so gay" But it's likely not going to stick.

I mean, my friends always ask me if "that's so gay" offends me at all. I always tell them it doesn't... though we do need to talk about how "funny" it was to dub our group of friends with the acronym ***S.... clearly not funny.

 

[[oni]LoKo]

Me and my bf always call things "gay" or "ghey" when we see it...We've even seen those commercials with Wanda Sykes and it just makes us lol. We really don't find things like that offending. Hell, I'll call him a "******" and other stuff like that when we are angry/playing, but really, it's just the fact that it has been embedded as such a derogatory word that it's hard to break away from it.
I try not calling things "gay" now, unless you know, I see a flamer or something that 99.99% is gay or in homosexual tendencies or natur, THEN I will say it's gay, but still, when i see something dumb or I do something dumb, I just end up saying it.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

>_>

So I have a purple and black case for my LG Dare. I personally think it's a nice accessory beyond merely being a hand-me-down from my stepmom. Hell, I even think of myself looking good with it.

Needless to say, this of all things has confirmed that I am truly metrosexual.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Takumaru]

stuff about a phone

You're gayer than I am. Outside of glasses, I never do anything with accessories. You didn't drink the punch at orientation, did you? I think you did. We infected it with gay germs, in a week or so you'll come bursting out of a closet in a flaming explosion of fabulousness really gay manner. Now if you'll excuse me from poking fun at you, I must go punish myself for using the "f" word.

Spoiler

Smooth Criminal

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

You're gayer than I am. Outside of glasses, I never do anything with accessories. You didn't drink the punch at orientation, did you? I think you did. We infected it with gay germs, in a week or so you'll come bursting out of a closet in a flaming explosion of fabulousness really gay manner. Now if you'll excuse me from poking fun at you, I must go punish myself for using the "f" word.

Spoiler

Smooth Criminal

awww..... baby's first fabulous.

momma is so proud

Spoiler

Smooth Criminal

 

[Takumaru]

i really, really, really hate that word.

 

[deepseadiva]

I make it mandatory to say it while snapping upwards.

All in the wrist baby.

 

[adumbrodeus]

we are in disagreement then. Whereas you see "That's so gay" as saying "That's lame (like gay people)" I see that, while that is how the saying arose, it now just means "That's lame/cheap"

The phrase is so mainstream that it now means what it means regardless of its roots. People who look at gay people as being "ungood" will look at us that way with or without the phrase and vice versa. Like I said, it's not ideal, but causing a big ruckus about it could irritate people giving them a vague idea that we are whiney and irritating which would, in turn, lower their opinions of us. Is it a stretch of an argument? maybe a bit, but I think the other side of the argument is a stretch as well. maybe less so but still. It's really nothing big. Still, Adam and I are going to try, from now on, to say "That's so HighSchoolMusical" instead of "That's so gay" But it's likely not going to stick.

I mean, my friends always ask me if "that's so gay" offends me at all. I always tell them it doesn't... though we do need to talk about how "funny" it was to dub our group of friends with the acronym ***S.... clearly not funny.

But you're missing the point, the point is not that the roots aren't kosher.

The point is that it hasn't distanced itself enough from it's roots.

Furthermore, it can't simply because of the way that humans think linguistically.


Therein lies the rub, as long as they share a single word, there's no way that "homosexual" can ever be distanced from "ungood" in the consciousness of people.


And this isn't able people who are prejudiced prior to using the word in speech or hearing it. This usage implants a subconscious understanding of gay people, something that causes people who would cause people who would not associate gay people with ungoodness to associate gay people with ungoodness.


Unfortunately, denying the realities of linguistics and their effects on our subconscious doesn't make it any less real.

still not sure how people believe that calling a sweater gay is making the gay community look bad.

It doesn't make the gay community "look bad".

It does one of three things.

1. If you mean that the sweater is bad in some way, it reinforces the idea that "gay" is a nebulous "ungood" concept subconsciously, contributing to discrimination against the gay community in the long term.

2. If you mean that the sweater is good in some way, you are supporting the reverse of the above, basically doing the same thing to the straight community except by elimination. I know it might not SEEM like a bad thing, but it furthers the divide between the lgbt community and the straight community, and contributes to heterophobia (yes, it DOES exist, I can provide easy cases). Since it's unlikely that there will be a gay revolution anytime soon, the major issues with this from your prospective is that it hurts relations between the gay and straight communities over the long term.

3. If you mean that it's good within the gay subculture... well I have issues with an enforced subculture based on an inborn attribute, but I'd prefer not to turn this into a rant about the stupidity of terms like "straight-acting".



But yeah, applied linguistics ftw.

 

[deepseadiva]

Still, Adam and I are going to try, from now on, to say "That's so HighSchoolMusical" instead of "That's so gay" But it's likely not going to stick

As corny as that is, thank you at the very least for considering what some of us are saying. You've made me smile.

 

[Timbers]

If you were to say:

That sweater looks gay.

It means the same as:

That sweater looks bad. ...like gay people!

Thus making the association that gay = bad. It's subtle, and an association that makes us "look bad."

Same as calling something jewish, lame, ********, (to a person) 'the n-word', etc. At one point or another every one of those words were an active part of my vocab (yer not proud) yet I still have a mentally disabled aunt who I hold the upmost respect for (and every other mentally ill person), have jewish friends and don't even try labelling them for it, and every black person I do meet/befriend, I don't think "oh **** he must be from the hood."

People can only choose to relate negative meanings of a word to outside origins if they choose to, it's not immediately embedded in the person's brain that (word)=bad in every sense.

You're gayer than I am. Outside of glasses, I never do anything with accessories. You didn't drink the punch at orientation, did you? I think you did. We infected it with gay germs, in a week or so you'll come bursting out of a closet in a flaming explosion of fabulousness really gay manner. Now if you'll excuse me from poking fun at you, I must go punish myself for using the "f" word.

lols.

I don't think I really have anything flaming. A friend gave me a pride necklace (which looks awesome) a few summers ago, but I don't really wear it or anything. Not because I dislike it but I just consider it another accessory, and rainbows don't look good on me. I do love accessories though. Necklaces, gloves, chains, belts, wristbands, and piercings I guess if that counts.

there's no way that "homosexual" can ever be distanced from "ungood" in the consciousness of people.

I never connect the two. It's just a word. Not saying that everyone keeps the two distant, but I still disproved your point that it will "NEVER BE DISTANCED NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER."

It's up to that person to see how they want to view the word and on what level it should be applied. People have a choice, you know.

 

[SuperBowser]

This discussion reminds me of something so I'll give an example too. My mum has always taught me and my sister to respect all people regardless of their beliefs.

She was brought up in India, and had a fairly sheltered childhood. Despite living in England for 15+ years, she never knew what gay meant! She'd heard it used in lots of conversations and even worked with someone that introduced themselves as gay but never really understood the word.

Despite what she'd always taught my sister and I, I remember my mum asking us a weird question when I was 14 years old. ''Did you know what gay means? I was wondering, are gay people bad?''.

It was a pretty funny situation on several levels and I still laugh about it - the question, the fact she's asking her kids for moral guidance, the fact she didn't know what gay meant for so long . But there is only one reason she even assumed that being gay is bad. Because society says so. Current use of the word ''gay'' in everyday language contributes to this whether or not you guys believe it.

 

[Timbers]

cute story, not really a legitimate example though as she couldn't relate gay to anything but bad. It's like when I was in elementary school and my cousin kept talking about a manga (Bas tard!!) where like, people would spellcast or whatever. Can't really remember it but I immediately connected the two as bas tards=wizards. So I'd go around calling mages and wizards and all that, bas tards. Obviously I was corrected shortly after and was given the more appropriate meaning of the word. If I call someone a bas tard now I don't immediately think of fantasy games.

Not quite the solid example either to counteract yours, but it's not really fair to use your mother in this situation. You said that several people introduced themselves as gay to her, but she never caught on to what the word meant. It's not like the opportunity didn't present itself to her where she could learn the meaning of the word from a source that didn't label gay=bad. It was just a misconception on her end, and I think it's rather safe to assume that the vast majority understand what a gay lifestyle is, and therefore don't necessarily need help understanding in a linguistic sort of way.

 

[GreenKirby]

I guarantee that people on here who thinks there's nothing wrong with calling uncool things 'gay' would get butthurt if I called uncool things 'cracker.' lol

The only time when people are not ignorant and insensitive of others, is when it only happens to them as well. lol

 

[Timbers]

cracker was never insulting and people who are insulted by that need to get out of the house more pronto.


Anyways we're talking about calling inanimate objects "gay," so your post as a whole is irrelevant. If gay people were being called gay, then so what? lol.


Also bad guarantee.

 

[SuperBowser]

But the problem was that even when she did learn the real meaning she already associated ''gay'' with all the negative connotations that people (including gay people) ascribe to it. Even after what me and my sister said, it took her a while before she believed us. She found it difficult to believe that a word everyone uses to mean bad things could not possibly reflect on the people it describes too.

I think what finally convinced her was when she realised some of her favourite musicians were gay .

But hey, as I said before, I still don't have super strong feelings on this. If the company you keep aren't homophobic, then there's no problem. It's just good to be aware that there can be subconscious repercussions for words like this when used around other people - perhaps I contributed to my mum's initial beliefs, I don't really know.

 

[GreenKirby]

cracker was never insulting and people who are insulted by that need to get out of the house more pronto.

So I guess I can call a woman a ***** then. After all, that word wasn't originally insulting.

Anyways we're talking about calling inanimate objects "gay," so your post as a whole is irrelevant. If gay people were being called gay, then so what? lol.

That's why I said uncool THINGS. Don't play dumb. Which goes back to my hypothetical point.

Also bad guarantee.

Yeah, you're right. I, a person who's not even white, should just start calling things I dislike 'cracker.' Especially in front of whites. It's not like they're gonna get mad. *rolls eyes*

Now let's change it to match your tone:

Yeah, you're right. I, a person who's not even homosexual, should just start calling things I dislike 'gay/***.' Especially in front of homosexuals. It's not like they're gonna get mad.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

So I guess I can call a woman a ***** then. After all, that word wasn't originally insulting.




That's why I said uncool THINGS. Don't play dumb. Which goes back to my hypothetical point.




Yeah, you're right. I, a person who's not even white, should just start calling things I dislike 'cracker.' Especially in front of whites. It's not like they're gonna get mad. *rolls eyes*

Now let's change it to match your tone:

Yeah, you're right. I, a person who's not even homosexual, should just start calling things I dislike 'gay/***.' Especially in front of homosexuals. It's not like they're gonna get mad.

I think you're missing the part about exercising discretion when using these words in a given context. Like, you know, only saying these things in front of people you know well?

Yeah.

Smooth Criminal

 

[GreenKirby]

So I'll just use 'cracker' in front of my friends then? There, it's still wrong though in the context though.

Even so, using gay as a term for something uncool?

Seriously, that's juvenile. I haven't said that since I was like 13. And some people haven't grown out of that yet?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

So I'll just use 'cracker' in front of my friends then? There, it's still wrong though in the context though.

Even so, using gay as a term for something uncool?

Seriously, that's juvenile. I haven't said that since I was like 13. And some people haven't grown out of that yet?

Hey, if you don't say that **** in front of your buddies that's fine. Different strokes for different folks. What's juvenile here is the condemnation of people that use these words in an entirely different context than what they're usually put in. I shouldn't have to walk on eggshells among my friends, the people that I KNOW. I'm sure if you called your buddies crackers they wouldn't give two ****s and flying ****, especially since they're your friends. And if they get caustic with you about it, then they really don't know you all that well.

Ever hear of the expression "You worry about you and yours; I'll worry about me and mine?" Yeah. I'm not too terribly concerned with what happens on a macro scale (in case I didn't make that obvious enough). Part of the reason why I feel this country is going to **** is because people are up each other's ***** for all of the wrong reasons. Some people should live and let live.

I don't feel like ranting. Bottom line is this: Don't worry about what the word means to THEM; worry about what it means to you.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Unfortunately, denying the realities of linguistics and their effects on our subconscious doesn't make it any less real.

And repeating them doesn't make them any more real. Is there an iota of truth to your argument? yup. But is it worth getting all our panties in a bunch? I say no.

Anyway, just because the two meanings of the word aren't separate enough for you yet doesn't mean that they never will be.

The subconsious "ungood" that you speak about from the phrase "that's so gay" is, by far, overridden by the completely consious "ungood" that's being preached by the anti-gay right. Plugging the tiny hole in the **** might make you a good little dutch boy, but, as long as there's a gushing cascade somewhere else, the words "innadequet" "superfluous" and "futile" can't even begin to describe the fact that such an action is little more than a gesture.

 

[Timbers]

So I guess I can call a woman a ***** then. After all, that word wasn't originally insulting.

A gay person is leading a gay lifestyle. A cracker is a white dude who is going to be that way forever and ever and ever. A ***** could mean several things (thanks censor!) but, unless I've somehow skipped over something related to the word where it was used to hold women in a respectful light regarding her lifestyle, then I don't think this works.

That's why I said uncool THINGS. Don't play dumb. Which goes back to my hypothetical point.

I apologize, was hard for me to follow your post, was early.

Anyways your idea is already taken. Pretty much anything that could be considered wealthy/high tech is immediately considered to belong to some nerdy white *** rich boy.

Yeah, you're right. I, a person who's not even white, should just start calling things I dislike 'cracker.' Especially in front of whites. It's not like they're gonna get mad. *rolls eyes*

You can..if you want..? If I were next to you and you said that I'd probably just snicker. I've directly been called a cracker on several occasions by dudes I didn't even know, so when I'm not being spoken to directly, and it's describing a THING, not a PERSON, why am I going to care?

Now let's change it to match your tone:

Yeah, you're right. I, a person who's not even homosexual, should just start calling things I dislike 'gay/***.' Especially in front of homosexuals. It's not like they're gonna get mad.

I don't get it.

 

[Yuna-Maria]

I don't know who this Green Kirby person is, but I do know that someone is in desperate need of a chill pill.
...Or a sedative.
I'm just sayin'.

 

[GreenKirby]

I'm fine. It's just funny that people don't know how damaging words can be unless it happens to them. Sorry, for being too blunt though

 

[adumbrodeus]

I never connect the two. It's just a word. Not saying that everyone keeps the two distant, but I still disproved your point that it will "NEVER BE DISTANCED NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER."

It's up to that person to see how they want to view the word and on what level it should be applied. People have a choice, you know.

Yay for taking things out of context.


Regardless, as long as they both exist and share the same word, subconsciously you will associate them unless you consciously reject one of the definitions to the degree that it effects your subconscious.


Your lack of conscious awareness of that association is not relevant because that wasn't what I was talking about.

Anyway, just because the two meanings of the word aren't separate enough for you yet doesn't mean that they never will be.

You're missing the point, it's a simple linguistic truth, word associations have enormous power over the human subconscious. This is an established principal of neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics (the source is neurolinguistics, because it creates an association in the sectors of the brain, and the effect is studied in psycholinguistics).

So I'm sorry, it is impossible, our brain doesn't process language in a way that allows us to break it.

And repeating them doesn't make them any more real. Is there an iota of truth to your argument? yup. But is it worth getting all our panties in a bunch? I say no.

Anyway, just because the two meanings of the word aren't separate enough for you yet doesn't mean that they never will be.

The subconsious "ungood" that you speak about from the phrase "that's so gay" is, by far, overridden by the completely consious "ungood" that's being preached by the anti-gay right. Plugging the tiny hole in the **** might make you a good little dutch boy, but, as long as there's a gushing cascade somewhere else, the words "innadequet" "superfluous" and "futile" can't even begin to describe the fact that such an action is little more than a gesture.

You may think that it's more important, but immiediate hate is a short-term thing, lasting only as long as this generation.

Homophobic language on the other hand, breeds hate.

The only way to actually cement your community as a valid non-inferior community is to eliminate homophobic language from the English vocabulary. And it's not just "that's so gay", there are a number of other things in our vocabulary that assist in this, it's a tiny part of the overall linguistic equation, but signifigant as a commentary on the whole.

Why do you think that feminists are so intent on eliminating patriarical language? Same reason, they know the linguistics.


For society to change, the language must change, there's no way around this.

 

[Yuna-Maria]

The pink triangle was the brand Nazis planted on gay people to identify them in concentration camps. Now it's a badge of honor.
Times change. Social contexts change with them. I think it's a bit too late for people to persecute anyone else for saying "that's so gay" in a derogatory fashion.

 

[Timbers]

I'm fine. It's just funny that people don't know how damaging words can be unless it happens to them. Sorry, for being too blunt though

Theoretically, it happens to everyone. I think if you went to a public high school you've heard someone call some thing gay at least once. It's not like it'll ever really hit home if it's not directed towards you to begin with.

words

I'm not sure whether it's your speaking in absolutes or just stubbornness to believe that people can seperate the two that bothers me more.

I understand where you're coming from, though. I still think the bigger reason people think ill of the gay community is not so much of a word relation as the idea of MEN HAVING SEX TOGETHER.

Unless you're lesbian in which case it's totally hot.

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

Lesbians are NOT attractive.

 

[Timbers]

----> the joke







----> your head

 

[Jim Morrison]

Americans make such a big deal out of gayism (wut).
We're so cool about it here

 

[[oni]LoKo]

MOST Lesbians are not attractive...but a few are..same thing with gays...a lot of them aren't hot either ><;;

imo

 

[Timbers]

Most people aren't attractive.

 

[[oni]LoKo]

Most people aren't attractive.

^^^ Win ^^^