Using the word 'gay' as a slur

people say that the word gay is okay to use as an insult, others say it isn't. But it's just word mutation, like the word wicked, or naughty, or gay went from happed to homosexual. it happens in languages
 
RDM said:
To be fair, he does have a point. Several times in this thread you have been using Christ/God as an insult which come people do indeed find incredibly offensive. Which is a touch hypocritical if you are complaining about another word you find offensive.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't have a point actually, because unlike jesus, there is evidence for homosexuality. He has as much reason to tell me to not offend his belief in tree fairies. Using a word in a way that is deragotaroy towards a section of society based upon naturally occurring and inherent traits, is an entirely different story.

Not to mention I never used it as an insult, but as a means of expressing disbelief, at no point did I assign the word christ or god in the same way the the word gay appears in nearly every thread on this forum.

I did not once say;

that is so christ

OMG ** SO GOD

lolz ** an christ

Q.E.D
 
Last edited:
k.Jacko said:
its truly a shame that PC cavaliers exist, misguided do-gooders.
But, these things go in fads and crazes don't they.

I remember at school calling just about everyone i spoke to 'gay' for one reason or another.

I slightly digress, but;
I remember black folk didn't like being called black, they were 'coloured'. Now they hate being called coloured, they must be called black. Know something? I've never met a black man yet. Some very dark brown people sure, in fact all shades of brown really, but not black. How can people get so defensive over such words that 'allegedly' describe their personage/culture? When in actual fact they don't. Only black men i've ever seen are coal miners.
**** = abbreviation for someone from Pakistan.
But its offensive because someone once said it was offensive and other eejits followed suit.
Brit = abbreviation for someone from britain. I could be easily offended, as i'm English, not welsh, scottish or otherwise, not purely because someone has abbreviated the word 'british'.
But i don't get offended at such words.
And i reckon if certain cultures were capable of individual thought and not 'trained' to be offended at such words then maybe there wouldn't be as many prejudiced peoples in the world.
Call someone in a turban a **** and they may be offended because they're not from Pakistan, they could be Indian. Jeez, i aint american but i'm caucasian so without speaking to me i could be mistaken for one. Doesn't upset me.

I get that homosexuality is still a much frowned upon minority and hence the need to stamp out homophobic remarks. But you can't wipe out a legit word that is clearly defined in the dictionery, just because its mis-used and/or someone gets offended at its mis-use.

Presposterous!

Go hug a tree!
Click to expand...

You amongst several others have totally missed the point that the OP is making. Your reference to the word **** is misguided. Yes it is just a word but no, a Pakistani didn't suddenly turn round one day and say they were insulted by the word ****, they were insulted by the derogatory context in which it was used, do you understand this? Similar principle applies to use of the word Gay to describe something that is rubbish/lame/poor/bad. Essentially it devalues an entire group of people by using it in a derogatory context.

I'll re-iterate what I said earlier that just seemed to be ignored. If your name was to become a nationally used word to describe something that was bad or rubbish e.g. "that is so Dave" (yes that sounds silly but you do get me right?) it would soon severely **** you off. Your name would be associated with something that is negative and everyone with the name Dave would be devalued.

That's my take on the matter anyhow
 
Samione said:
No he doesn't have a point actually, because unlike jesus, there is evidence for homosexuality. He has as much reason to tell me to not offend his belief in tree fairies. Using a word in a way that is deragotaroy towards a section of society based upon naturally occurring and inherent traits, is an entirely different story.

Not to mention I never used it as an insult, but as a means of expressing disbelief, at no point did I assign the word christ or god in the same way the the word gay appears in nearly every thread on this forum.

I did not once say;

that is so christ

OMG ** SO GOD

lolz ** an christ

Q.E.D
Click to expand...

So in other words you are free to offend how you see fit, but others aren't? As I said, very much hypocritical. Anyone with even passing knowledge of Christianity would know that taking the lords name in vain is considered quite insulting. But because you don't believe in it, you can feel free to do it? In that case if someone doesn't feel homosexuality is normal, or worth respecting why shouldn't they be able to use the word "gay"? You cheapen your entire arguement by resorting to the very tactics you decry in others, which is quite sad really as personally I agree with you that "gay" shouldn't be an acceptable phrase when used in a derogatory fashion.
 
RDM said:
So in other words you are free to offend how you see fit, but others aren't? As I said, very much hypocritical. Anyone with even passing knowledge of Christianity would know that taking the lords name in vain is considered quite insulting. But because you don't believe in it, you can feel free to do it? In that case if someone doesn't feel homosexuality is normal, or worth respecting why shouldn't they be able to use the word "gay"? You cheapen your entire arguement by resorting to the very tactics you decry in others, which is quite sad really as personally I agree with you that "gay" shouldn't be an acceptable phrase when used in a derogatory fashion.
Click to expand...

How do I cheapen my argument at all? The difference between religion and homosexuality are so vast you can't even compare them. If I told you that the use of the name Johnathan insulted my belief of Joakainism what would you say? It's not comparable to using a term in a manner that picks on peoples inherent genetic traits that they cannot change, so don't even try to draw up a comparison. It's not about offending people as I see fit is it? It's like you striking up equal value between me saying "Jesus Christ" and someone using "down syndrome" as an insult, they are REALMS apart. It's not as black and white as you portray it to be.

Either way, it was meant with no offence to christianity.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
How do you support your assertion that the use of 'gay' as a slur stems from a meaning of the word that was obsolete before most of the people using 'gay' as a slur were born and which is irrelevant to the slur anyway?
Click to expand...

First - there is the context - "this class is gay" - which of the two alternative meanings would you say is a better match - "this class is just some trivial old festal for grannies" or "this class is displaying strong sexual attraction to other classes of the same subject". The double meaning of the word gay undoubtedly adds to the attraction, but i think it was coined as light ageist term rather than spiteful homophobia.

Second - the actual saying "something is gay (as in jolly trivial)" has equivalents in several languages as far as I know, none of which use the same phrase for homosexual. So there is a chance the actual English phrase might be "borrowed".

I'm not sure "gay" ever became obsolete per say, but the archaic form is part of appeal - element elevating it to the perceived negative meaning - it's clear dotty-ism, funny disambiguation of antiquated phrase. It's in line with other refreshed in late 20th century archaisms - "crikey", "groovy", "willy nilly" to name but few.

On the other hand gay (as in bad phonetic adoption of French word gai or gaiety, meaning "care free", as used today in relation to homosexual practics, was originally used to describe burlesque acts and brothels. Straight brothels.

I can see some people take it as progression of american derogatory term "retarded", therefore backwards, rearward -> anal -> homo and finally gay. But I think it would be giving 80ies too much credit.
 
v0n said:
First - there is the context - "this class is gay" - which of the two alternative meanings would you say is a better match - "this class is just some trivial old festal for grannies" or "this class is displaying strong sexual attraction to other classes of the same subject".
Click to expand...

That's a gash argument. Now, should that be taken as meaning a cut or as a slang term for a rude bit?...
 
v0n said:
First - there is the context - "this class is gay" - which of the two alternative meanings would you say is a better match - "this class is just some trivial old festal for grannies" or "this class is displaying strong sexual attraction to other classes of the same subject". The double meaning of the word gay undoubtedly adds to the attraction, but i think it was coined as light ageist term rather than spiteful homophobia.

Second - the actual saying "something is gay (as in jolly trivial)" has equivalents in several languages as far as I know, none of which use the same phrase for homosexual. So there is a chance the actual English phrase might be "borrowed".

I'm not sure "gay" ever became obsolete per say, but the archaic form is part of appeal - element elevating it to the perceived negative meaning - it's clear dotty-ism, funny disambiguation of antiquated phrase. It's in line with other refreshed in late 20th century archaisms - "crikey", "groovy", "willy nilly" to name but few.

On the other hand gay (as in bad phonetic adoption of French word gai or gaiety, meaning "care free", as used today in relation to homosexual practics, was originally used to describe burlesque acts and brothels. Straight brothels.

I can see some people take it as progression of american derogatory term "retarded", therefore backwards, rearward -> anal -> homo and finally gay. But I think it would be giving 80ies too much credit.
Click to expand...

That would be a convoluted route, but I think it's simpler:

This <whatever> is bad/wrong/something else negative.
Homosexuality is bad/wrong/something else negative.
This <whatever> is gay.

I think your second argument is better, if the phrase is lifted from another language, but "that's gay!" usage is not limited to imdicating frivolity and triviality. It's a more generic negative, so I think my explanation is more plausible.
 
The meaning for the word "gay" has been lost for such a long time it seems a bit pointless chatting about it meaning anything now. If I were gay I'd find the word "queer" much more unpleasant.
 
um why would it be a slur if someone is gay and they were called gay?

how would that make it offensive to them? the fact that they are gay?

right...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom