Using the word 'gay' as a slur

but gay was used for happy, not using gay would be like not using black hole.

homos stole the name, if i used the word homo as a nasty then maybe (although would still argue context is more important)
 
Last edited:
starfighter said:
but gay was used for happy, not using gay would be like not using black hole.

homos stole the name, if i used the word homo as a nasty then maybe (although would still argue context is more important)
Click to expand...

No-one is talking about not using the word 'gay'.

No-one is making a blanket objection to the word 'gay'.

This bears no resemblence to that burbling fool so desperately seeking racism that he sees it in the term "black hole" when used to refer to a object that is black and is, at least in some way, a hole in space, or to that being used as a metaphor, i.e. something that has no connection at all to an inaccurate description of skin colour.

Are you seriously suggesting that 'gay' has become a generic term for anything wrong or bad within the last 10 years or so because people have travelled back in time to when it usually meant "cheerful, happy, somewhat frivolous" and decided that was a suitable basis for an insult when they returned?
 
Another ocuk gay thread blows up into epic proportion. The propaganda is working well minister.
 
Angilion said:
If you were saying that being Chinese is bad and wrong, then it would be like the point of this thread.

That is where we disagree. I think a person can consider irrational prejudice something offensive, regardless of whether or not they happen to be in the group it's targetted against.
Click to expand...

But i wasnt talking about people using the word to offend someone. The whole point im making is that people shouldnt find a single word offensive. The only time something can be seen as offensive is if it is used offensively.

Angilion said:
Not necessarily, no. If he says it's offensive, he is speaking for himself. If he says the woman find it offensive, he's speaking for her. Two different things.
Click to expand...

But why does HE find it offensive? There is no victim of this 'crime'. Therefore there is no crime, no one is hurt and no one is hurting anyone. So why would anyone take offense?

Angilion said:
If you don't see why, then you're lumping all women together as a single person, which is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Im not lumping all women together. But people who find something offensive and arnt the 'victims' are lumping all the 'victims' together.

Angilion said:
How is it not meant to be offensive to people who are labelled as being gay to use 'gay' to mean wrong and bad because of the connection with homosexuality?
Click to expand...

Unless someone makes a concious decision to use that word offensively then it isnt (or shouldnt be) offensive to anyone. The history of the word has nothing to do with that particular use.

Anyone who finds a single word offensive, regardless of its context and reason, is being overly sensitive.

Always judge the why, never the what.
 
Used to be common place about 6-8 years ago when I was at school, and I still use it nowadays. Screw this PC bs, it's soo gay !!!!

:D
 
Samione said:
The natural order of things?

You're so wrong I don't know where to begin, you give homophobes a worse name than they have already.

The equipment you used to type that asanine statement only exists because we mess with the natural order of things.

You do realise that since the dawn of civilisation the human race have been messing with the natural order of things, most medicines aren't natural, if it wasn't for us messing with the natural order of things, you'd probably be dead. Go back to your hole, please, what a total ignoramus.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that if the human race on mass decided to "mess with the natural order of things" in terms of inserting sexual organs were they weren't originally intended to go, and did this for a hundred years or so, there would be no human race. You can't realisticly use the "evolutuion" argument tio justifty your position.
 
The natural order of things dictates that homosexuality wouldn't happen 'en mass'. Equally, if we all decided en mass to eat our own faeces we wouldn't survive as a species for very long.

Evolution happens, homosexuality evolved into the works.
 
Captain Planet said:
I agree with the OP to a degree. "Gay" is used in a derogatory sense so should probably be put in the same class as **** and ******.
Click to expand...

But the word has positive as well as negative conotations whereas **** and ****** does not.

However it seems like some people use the word ****** in everyday speech. ie those that like (c)rap music from some silver spooned pretend gangster.
 
Class 04 said:
If I were gay, I would find this offensive.
Click to expand...
  • If you were Jehovah, would Christmas offend you?
  • If you were in a wheelchair, would people walking offend you?
  • and so on...
The problem with this, and the wider populous, is speaking up on behalf of others. It's unbelievably arrogant. If a homosexual man is offended by the word "gay", then the man can speak up for himself.

My two boys were taught to sing "ba ba coloured sheep" at school. I questioned the teacher about this and the policy was the headmistress would paraphrase certain lines as to not offend the black pupils. She's white, as far as I know has no experience of being black, doesn't actually know if "ba ba black sheep" is offensive to black people and basically took it upon herself to make these changes based on her outlook of racism and ethnic inclusion policy.

When will this social engineering on behalf of others stop?
 
jas72 said:
But the word has positive as well as negative conotations whereas **** and ****** does not.

However it seems like some people use the word ****** in everyday speech. ie those that like (c)rap music from some silver spooned pretend gangster.
Click to expand...

Gay only has two meanings, happy or homosexual, are you implying when someone uses gay as an insult they are using the happy meaning?

The majority of people who use it as an insult don’t mean it in a way thats insulting to homosexuals but that doesn’t stop it from being so. It just makes the people who constantly use it look like they are rude and have a limited vocabulary.
 
Offending people and groups is sooooooooo fickle too

Next year the remake of 'Dambusters' film will no doubt have to be historically factually wrong in re-naming Guy Gibson's dog to not be ****** otherwise it's predictable that the press, media and cinema goers will remember the film for the wrong reasons............

Yet last month I watched the "40 Year Old Virgin" DVD and the word ****** was used over a dozen times in the film, one scene in particular several times alone and unquestionably in a more mocking context than a factual WW2 drama but everyone turns a blind eye to this and the film escaped all form of negatives, prob from many of the same people that would pan the WW2 film should they not change the name and even if they referred to it once in a 2+ hrs film

Fickledome double standards at its best

Next year the film will make the headlines regardless of whether they change the name or leave it, but if they released a sequel to "Virgin" and it used that word 20 times no-one would bat an eyelid, it's all BS :o
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom