Using the word 'gay' as a slur
- Thread starter Doran
- Start date
You'll love what I have to say then.
I do not use the word Gay as an insult myself, I use it to mean homosexual people. But ultimately, who cares if they're offended? ...certainly not me.
Now I don't like the practice of homosexuality, I think it's an abhorrence, totally against the natural order of things. But there ya go, I don't mind saying that, weather the homosexuals like it or not. To be perfectly honest society should say this more often in my opinion, maybe then we wouldn't be seeing such practices starting to slip into the mainstream and become almost socially acceptable, maybe then we wouldn't be seeing the breakdown of society, of the family, of human values. Who knows. Last thing I want my kids to think is that it's normal and perfectly acceptable behaviour, it is not ...although at times looking at what's in the media these days you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise
Incidentally I checked the rules through before posting this, it's not a direct attack on anyone in particular, so it looks like I'm ok on that front. I expect some of the overly sensitive leafty types will be 'mortally' offended by this, but go and cry to someone who cares, because I don't.
Last edited:
I think context is stronger with 'gay'. Context may make '****' and '******' acceptable, as in your post and my reply, but there is a degree of offensiveness engrained in the words due to common usage. 'gay' is often used in a neutral context, so it isn't as offensive in itself. That puts it in a different class.
Using it as a slur, though, is definitely offensive. It's reflecting and promoting irrational prejudice and stereotyping. It's like, for example, referring to dishonesty as 'black', incompetence as 'male', greed as 'jewish'...etc.
I find expletives far less offensive than that, so I think the censorship here is the wrong way around.
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.
I think you're missing a point. Two points, actually.
i) Why do you think that being offended by some form of irrational prejudice means trying to speak for other people?
ii) No-one can speak for anyone else, as we are all individuals. Exceptions can be made where one person authorises someone else to speak for them, but that is not the norm.
So a person can speak about what they, that one single person, that individual, finds offensive. They cannot speak for millions of people who happen to have one thing in common with them.
To use a an example as a reductio ad absurdum argument, your position leads to the conclusion that the only people who can object to sexism are hermaphrodites.
Well now, I could take your post as an insult, calling me a total ignoramus like that. Tut tut, I won't though. I actually burst out laughing, I got pretty much exactly the response I expected from you to be honest.
Only reason I even aired my views in the first place was for a bit of amusement, I just wondered what kind of reaction I'd get.
Would you like to hear my views oh immigration, the war in Iraq ...on the European Union, or perhaps what we should do about Russia or weather George Bush is really an ok guy or not? ...didn't think so.
...oh and by the way, it's spelt, asinine ...and I used my fingers to type that statement ...my fingers aren't unnatural!
Last edited:
It does, because prejudice against homosexuality, or at least homosexuality between men, is why it's being used as a negative word. If your car is being bad/wrong in some way and you say 'my car's being gay', you are saying 'homosexuality is bad/wrong'.
It would be like, for example, referring to a bad financial deal as jewish.
If a person were to say '40% APR! That credit card is jewish', they would not be saying 'That credit card is a follower of Judaism', would they? They'd be saying 'Jews are usurers and all-round greedy money-grubbers'.
This entire thread is about using it in a derogatory way.
What's to debunk? ...how can I do that when it's all a load of 'bunk' to start with.
Do you vote Liberal Democrat ...or maybe Green Party by chance?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,290
I think the point that you're missing is the habit of describing something that's bad as gay is something that people pick up way before they're old enough to even know what it means, and by the time you do know what it means... it's too late.
Hence why I have more than one gay friend who STILL uses the word gay to describe bad things.
It's habit.
What will you do to make sure you do not have a child that is homosexual or lesbian?
That's a good question, while I am not looking at having any children in the near future I was actually thinking about that. I guess I will have to educate them from an early age in the more conservative and long held beliefs of society and hope that they don't decide to rebel by dabbling in homosexuality.
I suppose I could just move to Alabama or maybe small town Texas, they wouldn't dare then.
Well no, no I don't. I might not hold beliefs that are inline with yours, but that does not make me an idiot. I think the BNP are little more than a bunch of blockheaded thugs for the most part. And I'm a computer engineer so I'm quite aware that they don't grow on trees.
Hey now come on, don't go all heretical on me. I'm not some sort of barbarian you know.
Last edited:
If you go back and read it, you'll find that the central point was that your "natural order of things" argument is wrong because humans, including you routinely go against it. Which tree did your computer grow on?
If you want to use the "natural order of things" argument without making yourself look like a fool and a hypocrite, you have two options:
i) Define anything done by humans as natural, on the basis that humans are natural.
ii) Live, or at least advocate living, a natural life. No technology above stone age, ideally. Certainly no electricity, etc, etc. Which, in an ironically amusing way, would make you a more hardcore "green" than almost any members of the Green Party.
I would debunk your argument, but you haven't made one. You've just said you think homosexuality is wrong because you think it's wrong.