Using the word 'gay' as a slur

I don't see the problem. "Gay" is often used interchangeably with "wrong". This is fine because "gay" is wrong.

Not that being gay is wrong, what is wrong is that animals (including humans) are not designed to be gay.
 
If you see sex as fully for the purpose of pro creation then you're a bit odd in my eyes.

We're not designed to eat meat but meats tasty. You could say thats wrong.
Would that mean we could say eww thats carnivorous.

Whatever spin you try and put on it, saying thats gay is basically saying being gay is a bad thing, homophobic.
 
Erm yes we were designed to eat meat! :/ We're "homnivores", we also still have canines, and lastly we've been eating meat since we became homosapiens.

Secondly I'm not homophobic, as my post was generally tongue-in-cheek, but you're being so uptight and precious you're obviously a little sensitive flower, so I do apologise. However agreed from a recreational point of view I guess "anything goes"... however I completely understand the "natural" arguement which is quite right. However at the same time it's natural to "love" and since love is better than hate, then if men/women want to bonk each other that's great... however it doesn't stop it being a non-natural from a physical process.
 
Class 04 said:
Is used often on this forum.

If I were gay, I would find this offensive.

I think the word should be considered an expletive and not allowed on a family forum.

Thoughts?

(apart from calling the thread/idea gay?) :)
Click to expand...

I take it you're the fuddy duddy type that writes in to Points of View with the epicially mind-numbingly petty complaints?

EDIT - Eek 5 pages, didn't notice that... I see the topic has somewhat matured. :p
 
I don't know why anyone is even bringing up the fact that our bodies were not physically designed to be homosexual, because it means nothing, and it also doesn't mean that homosexuality isn't natural.
 
Freefaller said:
They tend to fit together better ;)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure, I hear the other way is a pretty tight fit!

hoho!

edit:

To contribute something serious, I know people use it in reference to homosexuality being a negative thing (whether or not that's true is another thread), but I wonder if it's the modern equivalent to using the word "queer" to describe something unusual?

another edit:

Actually thinking about it further it's not really bad to use it as a slur, I mean if you say it as a hetro it's usually to express disappointment in something; if you were hitting on a woman and it turned she was gay that would be disappointing too. So I can understand the usage, but also why people would take offence.
 
Last edited:
Homosexuality has been around for as long as humans have been around... so it could be construed as "normal" or natural. In the animal world (which is where we are from really) it doesn't make sense as in the animal world the aim of sex is to procreate - they don't necessarily do it for fun as we do. However taking into account evolution etc... it's understandable how now it could be seen as just an evolution of our animal instincts. Heck as I said, as long as people love each other it's all good. Doesn't mean I think it's normal, and so what if it's not normal, I'm not a biggot or am offended by it, I accept it and it doesn't bother me per se, I just don't think it's 100% natural, apart from the love aspect. It's no different to me finding smoking unpleasant, it doesn't bother me if people do it, I just don't like it.

You see I find the word "queer" to appear as much more aggressive than "gay".

Then again in my circle of friends we all hurl abuse to each other and call each other queer, gay etc... it's a laugh really, it's just like we call each other ****s - it's just banter, it means nothing. Too many sensitive people these days it seems.
 
Animals are just designed to eat sleep and shag though, they have no intelligence or preference as long as they feel they're procreating! ;) I know, I speak animal fluently!
 
Gays do not have as good women finding skills as a hetro. That is fact, they are inferior at finding a suitable mate, you cannot deny this is the case. Not so much a of a problem for humans as we have higher intelligence but in an animal it would be the end.

You can argue that this is evolution, weather it will be of benefit or detriment is natural selection. this is "natures design", don't read so much into the word design, we are not saying God made you like that so thats how you should do it. simply that the reason you are here and like you are is due to evolution. It isn't random. Perhaps the mutations are random but weather you pass them on isn't and being gay is unlikely to provide you with an advantage at passing on your genes. imo but I might be wrong. Gays might rule the world in a few years, in which case I am wrong, however it is unlikely as they will be too busy bumming each other. :)
 
strudey said:
Wrong. Animals of all types have been documented engaging in homosexual activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Click to expand...

Not wrong at all. I am fully aware that animals also engage with their own sex. It doesn't mean it is not technically a design flaw (I am not religious in the slightest it is just the best way to describe it).

The entire purpose to life is to procreate (its just fun to practice and some other stuff, propagation of the species etc).

The same "flaw" (don't want to give it a negative connotation) exists in many animal types (including humans).

Fundamentally it all comes down to how we and animals are not designed/evolved/whatever to be homosexuals. That is a factual point you simply cannot argue with. The "inny" "outty" bits as someone referred to it as above :)
 
There's pages of posts in this thread and I can't be bothered to read it all. I'll just add something that can be ignored completely by everyone :)

Language evolves. The homosexual community hijacked the sweet little English word "Gay" to try to give themselves a warm, fuzzy, friendly public image. This upset a lot of people - not least those named Gay. Now playground slang has comprehensively hijacked "gay" again to mean "a bit daft" (so far as I can work out). Now it's the homosexual community's turn to be a bit upset.

Obviously they are mistaken to believe that "playground" use of the word has any reference whatsoever to their sexual practices. It is disingenuous of them to pretend it is, in a pathetic attempt to get their word back.
 
Tombo said:
Mind saying why rather than just trolling?
Click to expand...

I can if you want.

starfighter said:
Gays do not have as good women finding skills as a hetro. That is fact, they are inferior at finding a suitable mate, you cannot deny this is the case. Not so much a of a problem for humans as we have higher intelligence but in an animal it would be the end.
Click to expand...

That is sort of like saying "People that don't play football aren't as good at it as football players." Having good women finding skills is not exactly a useful skill if you are gay, and even if you had brilliant women finding skills you would never actually use them.

starfighter said:
You can argue that this is evolution, weather it will be of benefit or detriment is natural selection. this is "natures design", don't read so much into the word design, we are not saying God made you like that so thats how you should do it. simply that the reason you are here and like you are is due to evolution. It isn't random. Perhaps the mutations are random but weather you pass them on isn't and being gay is unlikely to provide you with an advantage at passing on your genes. imo but I might be wrong. Gays might rule the world in a few years, in which case I am wrong, however it is unlikely as they will be too busy bumming each other. :)
Click to expand...

As the number of homosexuals seems to be reasonably constant, then it seems that it isn't entirely genetic and doesn't seem to be having any impact on human species viability. Gays are not dying out, it is not dissappearing from the gene pool in any way. So the whole genetic arguement seems to be pretty moot. If it is genetic, it seems to be a reasonably stable genetic trait that gets passed on from heterosexual couples.

In reality I think that there is no such thing as heterosexuality and homosexuality and that it is a sliding scale of who you find attractive. We seem to be conditioned to one end of the scale or the other. Without societal pressures it is quite possible that we would all end up a little more varied in our sexual partners. Recreational sex for fun with either gender, sex with the oposite gender for the purpose of procreation. However I don't think that the societal pressures will ever let up to allow that to happen. There are too may interested parties on both side of the divide who want to keep it that way.
 
JBod said:
Not wrong at all. I am fully aware that animals also engage with their own sex. It doesn't mean it is not technically a design flaw (I am not religious in the slightest it is just the best way to describe it).
Click to expand...

How can you describe homosexuality as a design flaw when we don't even fully understand why it occurs?

Fundamentally it all comes down to how we and animals are not designed/evolved/whatever to be homosexuals. That is a factual point you simply cannot argue with. The "inny" "outty" bits as someone referred to it as above
Click to expand...

So we're not designed to be homosexuals? Just a minute ago you said it was a design flaw. If it was not created by design, then it cannot possibly be a design flaw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom