ahahahaaaa! got your attention eh? I'm feeling contraversial (well if I'm going to throw 5 points away!!)
right... get of your high horse... c'mon soldier DISMOUNT!
why is it wrong to call something "rubbish" or "lame (can I say that) or "naff" or "wimpy".. GAY??
Gay people make jokes about hetrosexual people, they make lots of jokes and often create a career out of it... they call us breeders as a derogatory term!! (good job their parents bred though eh?!) But I don't mind this - i'm cool with diversity.
The word gay was adopted by the homosexual community and I don't think they should have COMPLETE control of it! When Chris Mohles got slaughtered for using "gay" as a derogatory term I was disgusted! It's just a word - not a declaration of what it is to be homosexual surely?
Now... please feel free to get back on your high horse and let me know what you think... but bare in mind... I'm not insulting homosexuals - just wanting to use a WORD as I choose!
2006-08-20 07:17:57 · 20 answers · asked by zebra 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Just in case anyone wonders why I care... it's simply because I was marking some "best answers" and someone got torn to shreds for using the "G" word...
2006-08-20 07:22:31 · update #1
answerer Sam makes a good point with "gaylord" - that is part of my cultural heritage! What school boy didn't call others "gaylord" with no thought to it's real conotation? hmmmm
2006-08-20 07:27:11 · update #2
Adam G makes an intersting point. He thinks that my saying "they do it so why can't I" is childish. Was this the only point I made?
But by the same token isn't his point that "they don't like it so won't do it either" just my point from a different perspective?
Would that mean that he is childish too? hmmmm. Or maybe he has a point, just poorly made and therefore unlikely to change my opinion.
2006-08-20 08:06:26 · update #3
Gilno E -
I don't think Chris Moyles is homophobic - but then being straight perhaps I'm poorly placed to judge... I call things "gay" out of habit rather than pre-mediated thought.
I mean, I hate fox hunters but I won't ever call things "fox-hunty" - but if "fox - hunty" was a common saying when I was young I probably would now,
Maybe what is and isn't acceptable has changed in the last 20yrs - well it must have! but the word GAY hasn't caught up yet as far as I can see
The term GAY just slips out and probably will for me and millions of others ... I just don't think it's a terrible thing to use it in multiple contexts!!
2006-08-20 08:18:57 · update #4
The problem is that the roots of the term are derogatory, even if common usage has diluted this fact. The same has happened to a term like bastard. This does make either OK to use though, if you/Moyles respect homosexual people, ask yourself whether either of you would use the term gay in the way you describe in homosexual company. I would guess no, as you would avoid the word bastard in parallel circumstances. I actually think that the annoyance that some have about what they perceive to be the appropriation of the term gay as slightly veiled mild homophobia. Words get assigned new meanings all the time, I'm sure the so called straight world can spare this one. The difference about joke telling is all about power. A minority can mock the majority with impunity as it is in a small way attempting to redress the balance. A bit like the bullied taking the pee out the bully if you will.
2006-08-20 14:12:48 · answer #1 · answered by phantasy_one 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was a time when "nice" was used in the same way. It's sarcasm. The difference here is that the gay community is the butt of the joke. There are very few scenarios in modern parlance where gay is used to mean joyous (some revisited older texts, in a few old song lyrics...) so to use it in the dismissive manner "That's so gay!" will resonate more strongly with the audience's awareness of the Good As You community than with the happy meaning.
This is why it is derogatory, the implication being that anything which the user finds unsatisfactory is attributable to the gay community.
As for the term "breeder", I only use it to describe people whose hobby or job is to breed livestock or pets. They can be Straight or LGBTQ.
While I don't approve of the use of the phrase - at least Chris' actions sparked a debate.
Use it in company, if you will, but make sure you've first installed a really good gaydar. Otherwise you may be subject to the same verbal slaughtering that was afforded Chris Moyles.
2006-08-21 03:37:28 · answer #2 · answered by unclefrunk 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
*dismounting*
Hmmm having thought about it (yes I am that sad) I think you make an interesting point when I was younger gay was used to call something lame however it was not normally a person it was an action, object the such like... However it was always used to mean lame weak feeble and pathetic if you then become slightly contreversial you could say that such words were thrown at homosexuals as an insult (yes i know I am making a sweeping statement) and therefore to call something gay you are taking a swipe at homosexual people either intentionally or unintentionally. However... as a child i also used to call people spoons and therefore does that mean I am insulting all chefs? Personally i wouldnt call something gay as I do feel that it is being insulting as I personally believe that the current usage of the word gay to mean lame came about as an insult to 'gay' people. Oh and your point about gay people making jokes about hetrosexual people that is beacause the world is far to politically correct now. So before I get back up on my high horse I will add that if you wish to call something gay be my guest as far as i am concerned it is just a word and most gay people I know rise above it it is the pc hetrosexual crowd that end up up in arms over things like that
2006-08-20 18:46:52 · answer #3 · answered by suzi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting to say the least. I was thinking the other day how times again have changed . I don't remember gay being used when I was in School. Or even the Army. Queer was about, not sure I heard ****** much either. I always thought gay meant to be happy joyous and free. Well I don't think I really answered your question. But this is my view. I just hope and pray that someday soon we will all get along and accept each other.
2006-08-20 14:36:29 · answer #4 · answered by nicenvt 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The use of the word gay is not wrong. The use of the word to pull from it’s connotative meaning it’s “common” or accepted use, is wrong. We all know when someone sees something as weak or lame and address it as “that’s so gay”; their intentions aren’t to stress how happy it is. It is saying it sucks…Excuse my pun. LOL That’s just like saying when you see a prejudice bigot that is clear culturally insensitive as “that’s so white!” ï
Small comments like that have broaden the gap between cultural differences for ages. We most stop even the small derogatory comments.
2006-08-20 16:04:02 · answer #5 · answered by Vell g 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're using two year old logic. Justifying something that isn't right by saying "OH SOMEONE ELSE DOES IT TOO!" sounds exactly like something a 2 year old would say...hence the term 2 year old logic. It's a stupid, stupid way to think.
There are more appropriate words than gay, and if someone doesn't like people who use gay as a derogitory word/adjective for anything, then they're probably not going to do the same about heterosexual people.
2006-08-20 14:45:02 · answer #6 · answered by Adam G 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
why did Chris have to use the word 'GAY' for a derogatory term? why not use the normal terms? as we can see in the dico, gay also means joyfull, so where's the connexion with bad term?
mostly the Gay word is used as a derogatory term by homophobic/anti-gay people, meaning that being gay is wrong/bad...so, is Chris homophobic?
2006-08-20 15:11:55 · answer #7 · answered by Gilno E 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
umm i never called anyone a breeder... that's not homosexuals, there are plenty of heterosexual people who refer to parents as "breeders", and aren't interested in having children. most gay people want to be parents. i don't see the big ******* deal.
also, gay is not a derogatory term, QUEER is. *** is. DYKE is. which are all terms we have "reclaimed"; however, it is still like referring to a black guy as "******" without actually being black. you can't do it.
you're also a loonytoon.
2006-08-20 16:28:03 · answer #8 · answered by kittens 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think its fine to say gay, because the term has changing its meaning over the years, and its now not derogatory to homosexuals in particular, just stupid things, hence why Chris Moyles is still on the radio!
But as long as there are no negative attitudes toward homesexuals then there is no problem with using it as a term. Its when the attitudes reflect bad feeling toward them, thats it becomes a problem
and i think it is perfectly acceptable to bet on your high horse about it, it annoys me too... to the extent i wrote my english eam on it (and got an A)
So yeah.... Nothing wrong with using it!
2006-08-20 14:26:46 · answer #9 · answered by confused_about_everything 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it's a completely seperate meaning for the same word. A lot of people use 'gay' as the definitive term for "lame". I also hear *** used in the same way, when directed at particularly lame people. There really is no connotation concerning sexuality in the new meaning. I understand it's offensive and try to make sure I don't say it in front of gay people, just like I try not to say n*gga in front of black people. To me, n*gga is someone of any race, who tries to be or is a gangster, a thug, someone like that.
Get pulled over for doing 70 in a 60... gay!
Getting stuck with one of those too social for their own good drama fags for a school project... gay!
2006-08-20 15:46:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋