Using the word 'gay' as a slur

Samione · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:34

Monkey Puzzle said:
Okay, once more. The mutations are random, though we have evolved enzymatic mechanisms by which we regulate the rate of mutation so as not to become a cancerous lump every generation.

Natural selection, the mechanism by which mutations are selected is not a random process. It refers to the selective pressures that pick out mutations that cause the organism to pass on more of those genes. That is in no way saying there is an intelligent force behind them, only that the selective pressures involved in selecting out mutations better fitted to the environment are very much not random; they guide, or select, which mutations will result in more offspring through greater propagation and survival.

Ok yes, before it sounded like you were suggesting there was an intelligent force behind the selection.

Tombo · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:36

Samione said:
I love how your so witty, I really do. Everything you come up with is so original and to the point. It really cuts!

It's a shame everyone else can't be as awesome as me.

Samione · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:38

I wish I could ignore everything anyone ever says and return with witty retorts of how great I am like you do. I guess pride is holding me back. What i'd give to have none and be like you. I guess one can dream.

TurboMonkey · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:38

Do people find "faggot" offensive?

Tombo · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:40

I don't, no.

I wouldn't call someone it in real life or condone anyone else doing so though.

Monkey Puzzle · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:44

TurboMonkey said:
Do people find "faggot" offensive?

Yep, apparently so. I know, it's pc gone mad. I remember the good old days when it referred to low quality offal treats for all the family.

Tombo · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:46

Faggot is distinctly malicious though, gay is not.

pitchfork · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:47

Tombo said:
Oh yes how stupid of them, they think you're gay because you dress up and go to gay clubs They should assume you're straight, they're really stupid that's for sure.

My point is there are still many idiotic homophobes about.
And the signs are there to annoy them.

Was there any need to make homophobic comments? No.

Samione · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:50

Cue Tombo's generic "i'm going to ignore the points you raise and tell you how awesome I am!" response.

Tombo · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:53

No, I don't feel like it.

pitchfork said:
My point is there are still many idiotic homophobes about.
And the signs are there to annoy them.

Was there any need to make homophobic comments? No.

I'm wasn't talking about the fact they said it, just the fact you seemed surprised they'd think you were gay for going to gay clubs dressed up.

pitchfork · 2 Sep 2008 at 18:21

Tombo said:
I'm wasn't talking about the fact they said it, just the fact you seemed surprised they'd think you were gay for going to gay clubs dressed up.

I don't give a toss if people think I'm gay, theres no denying I have my camp side.
Some people get sensitive about it, with some stupid need to proove they are manly.

Samione · 2 Sep 2008 at 18:31

Tombo said:
No, I don't feel like it.

I'm wasn't talking about the fact they said it, just the fact you seemed surprised they'd think you were gay for going to gay clubs dressed up.

After which we clearly established that judging someones sexuality by how they look is the hieght of ignorant chav-like behaviour.

Duke · 2 Sep 2008 at 18:33

KittensCake said:
This thread is gay. You're gay. Everything is gay. GAY.

gay0r

The Running Man · 2 Sep 2008 at 18:39

i believe "gay" to be wrong.

therefore if something is "wrong" i can conversely use the word gay to represent the word "wrong"...its that simple.

wrong is an overused word.

besides which has a stronger phoenetical effect?

in an unimpressed tone;

Wrong Wrong Wrong!
Ghey Ghey Ghey!

i think the latter, so it gets used.

Tombo · 2 Sep 2008 at 19:06

Samione said:
After which we clearly established that judging someones sexuality by how they look is the hieght of ignorant chav-like behaviour.

Well duh but if you hang out at gay clubs as well then someone is obviously going to end up thinking things, rightly or wrongly.

Angilion · 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07

Ed said:
[..]
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.
[..]

You're fighting a strawman.

No-one is talking about being offended by the word 'gay'.
No-one is saying that a homosexual man couldn't speak up for himself.
There are few if any heterosexual men, or women, speaking here on behalf of homosexual men. Did you not notice the word 'I' in the post you quoted?
If you applied your argument logically, you wouldn't allow a homosexual man to speak against it either, because that would mean he was, according to your argument, speaking for all homosexual men. Obviously, he has no right to do so.

Several people have used the same line of argument, but it doesn't make any sense.

Nitefly · 2 Sep 2008 at 19:17

Without reading the rest of the thread:

The word gay is an example I like to think of myself being highly hypocritical. I use gay all the time.

"Thats Gay"
"You're Gay"
"I would, but I'm not a Gay"

All used completely out of context and with negative conotations. Its pretty bad to be honest. I moan that people shoudln't use **** when it causes offense even if not intended, yet I will quite happily use gay freely regardless.

In 60 years, I wonder if it will still be used so liberally.

Angilion · 2 Sep 2008 at 19:18

starfighter said:
But seeing as the term gay was used before homosexuals started getting called it, you can't now ban it.

While I might be slandering homos, i maght also be slandering happy people. You cannot know and thus cannot ban it.

Thats what you get for stealing names. If homosexual started to be used as an insult then yes that would be wrong. But banning gay is like banning black, black was there first as another word.

And on top of that context. If I am black and I say to my black friend, Yo ***** what up. Am I being racist to him?

I am very against prejudice but also over the top PC bull.

As South Park says you should be able to mock everything. South Park knows!

Why did you think this was a relevant response to a post saying things like this?

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

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

You are the one talking about banning the word 'gay'.
You are the one talking about a blanket objection to the word.

Why are you quoting my posts when you are arguing with yourself?

Angilion · 2 Sep 2008 at 19:29

peetee said:
Doesnt anyone else share my feeling in that gays are infact an evolution - they are our attempt at evolving in a way to help stop our over population of the planet.

No, because if that was the case homosexuality would be a fairly recent thing and it isn't. Greece was well known for it almost 3000 years ago, for example. The planet was far from over-populated then.

You could argue that homosexuality is a response to more local population pressures. Perhaps areas in ancient Greece were overpopulated, I don't know. It doesn't make sense as an evolutionary development, though, because it wouldn't be fast enough.

The only thing that's recent is defining a person as homosexual or heterosexual, as opposed to defining sex as homosexual or heterosexual. Homosexuality itself appears to exist throughout recorded history and there's no reason to believe it didn't exist before then.

Do you have any evidence to support your feeling?

Personally, I think on an evolutionary scale homosexuality is a random variation that continues to exist because there's no reason for it not to.

Nitefly · 2 Sep 2008 at 19:31

peetee said:
Doesnt anyone else share my feeling in that gays are infact an evolution - they are our attempt at evolving in a way to help stop our over population of the planet.

No absolutly not. There is no such thing as group evolution.