"That is gay!"

they are normal or gay well infulenece not common; reason you know homo and lebsian same means you know homo that is weird. my opinion think you are comfortable. i guess you are depend your feeling.
 
it depends on the context it is used. If it's meant to offend then it pisses me off. If it's obvious that there's something over there that's funny or of sorts then it's okay..just depends on how it's used
 
Yeah, I've never really seen the need to be all "up in arms" about it. I mean, if you say something offensive to someone who's gay in regards to their orientation, that's a different story, but I think that everyone accepts that words can have different meanings and connotations depending on the context. If I call some girl I don't like a bitch, nobody says I'm insulting female dogs... That's the way I see it.
 
Actually, strike that. Whenever i want to refer to something in a negative light, I'll just say "That's so deaf". I'm not saying something offensive to someone who is deaf in regards to their hearing loss, as that would be a different story. I'm just giving the word a different meaning.
 
pathymo said:
Actually, strike that. Whenever i want to refer to something in a negative light, I'll just say "That's so deaf". I'm not saying something offensive to someone who is deaf in regards to their hearing loss, as that would be a different story. I'm just giving the word a different meaning.
Click to expand...

That is quite an idea on a deaf website. You must be getting tired of us.
 
deafdyke said:
Whenever people say that, I always say " Really? I thought it was LESBIAN!"
Or I go " How do you know? Did you see it shagging another thing?" I hate the term gay in this context. It sounds so fourth grade.
Click to expand...

This is my reaction to the term as well. I just think it's a stupid thing to say about something.

But, in another light, I can see the point that someone made above. I would consider the term offensive in that light. You would NOT say "That it so like a black man." or whatever. So, while not overtly offensive, I can see where some people could be offended by it. If more people thought about it in this context, I doubt the term would be so popular. But, as also with most "fads", this too shall die out eventually, me thinks.

Just my two cents.
 
pathymo said:
Actually, strike that. Whenever i want to refer to something in a negative light, I'll just say "That's so deaf". I'm not saying something offensive to someone who is deaf in regards to their hearing loss, as that would be a different story. I'm just giving the word a different meaning.
Click to expand...

But this is why I think it's pointless to get so upset about it. You can't really compare the two words here. "Gay" as a word has a variety of meanings. The word itself means joyful, if you're referring to a homosexual person it designates their orientation, if you use it to say "that's so gay" it becomes something lame or negative. Same with "Bitch". The word really means a female dog, if you call someone that, you're implying negative things about them (different negative things depending on if it's a guy or a girl), if I say "that's bitchin'" then it means awesome or great. These are words that sort of drift about taking on different meanings in different contexts. "Deaf" doesn't really work the same way. It's not a word that's commonly used to refer to anything else.

I would get less upset about the word, and more about the specific way it's used. If I hear someone say something is "gay", that probably wouldn't bother me, but if someone was harassing someone else by saying they were "gay" and being malicious about it, then I would think that was offensive. I just have to be fair about it. If I call someone a bitch, I'm not being offensive to female dogs. If I say something's lame, I'm not being offensive to someone who might have a handicap. If I say it sucks, I'm not being offensive to vacuums.

Certain words do have different meanings. If I say that I'm queer, nobody would think I'm being offensive to myself, but look at what the word actually means. Why get more offended about a completely inoffensive word that took on a new meaning to refer to homosexuals, then another negative meaning, then a word that was originally negative, then also referred to homosexuals.

(On a side note, this is also what I think about the word "retarded". It's just a word. The fact is, it's more offensive that the medical community decided to use that word to describe mentally handicapped people than that people now use it to mean negative things. The word has an inherently negative meaning... )

I just think there are bigger fish to fry out there. :shrug:
 
"That's so gay"!...very common with the teens!...And they are more open and accepting to gay people that most adults are.

It's not meant as an insult! I remmy way baaaack when Blacks were called the "n" word...then called Blacks and now moreso African Americans.

Retarded, mentally retarded, retards....crazy....on and on, and now it's "mentally challenged."

Same as for us deafies! And I still haven't found out what we are really called, as there are so many different opinions.

At ages 17, 14 and 12...my boys will say "That's so gay"!..."No way, it's gay"! I don't feel the "gay community" is offended by this/or should be.

Because it's gonna be a looooong time before "That's so Gay"! is gonna disappear. Even I, have said it at times....and no reference to "gay people".

All in all, the Homo/les. community does not "own" the word gay! It's used in various ways!

BTW....my dog Anita, looks so gay today! She's smiling! And by that, I mean she looks happy!
 
pathymo said:
I think your reaction just makes the point even more clear.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, pathymo. There are some arguments where that type of point works, and some where it doesn't. In the many posts where I've compared gay marriage rights to deaf marriage rights, for example, it's a perfectly valid comparison. Trying to make someone understand by asking them to imagine that they were made to suffer the same things can work in that case. But this argument is more about semantics, and the two words that describe both groups are completely different in this context. You can't compare one to the other.

I think that Bottesini's reaction is more a reaction to the fact that you're trying to play on people's emotions to prove a generally incorrect argument. I don't think it makes your point clearer at all. I don't think she sounds upset at the implication that "deaf" would be used to mean negative things. She sounds like someone who considers the point you're trying to make childish, which I think it is.

But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Bott! :wave:
 
lsfoster said:
I have to disagree, pathymo. There are some arguments where that type of point works, and some where it doesn't. In the many posts where I've compared gay marriage rights to deaf marriage rights, for example, it's a perfectly valid comparison. Trying to make someone understand by asking them to imagine that they were made to suffer the same things can work in that case. But this argument is more about semantics, and the two words that describe both groups are completely different in this context. You can't compare one to the other.

I think that Bottesini's reaction is more a reaction to the fact that you're trying to play on people's emotions to prove a generally incorrect argument. I don't think it makes your point clearer at all. I don't think she sounds upset at the implication that "deaf" would be used to mean negative things. She sounds like someone who considers the point you're trying to make childish, which I think it is.

But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Bott! :wave:
Click to expand...

You are correct. Thank you for explaining me!! :lol: (Bottesini sometimes requires explanation, and sadly the people who usually understand me keep getting banned!)
 
Bottesini said:
You are correct. Thank you for explaining me!! :lol: (Bottesini sometimes requires explanation, and sadly the people who usually understand me keep getting banned!)
Click to expand...

This is why I stick to the unoriginal deal of typing explaining paragraphs which usually gives the other person a clearer understanding of who you are and where do you stand from! It's either that or observe them over a long period of time to understand them better.

But yep, not everyone has the time or feels like doing it ;)
 
How is it any different? There is a gay community, gay people, gay families, etc etc. Using the term "gay" to refer to something in a negative light is just as silly and childish as it would be to say something is so "black" or "deaf" or "asian" or "straight" or "blind" or whatever. There is absolutely no difference.
 
pathymo said:
How is it any different? There is a gay community, gay people, gay families, etc etc. Using the term "gay" to refer to something in a negative light is just as silly and childish as it would be to say something is so "black" or "deaf" or "asian" or "straight" or "blind" or whatever. There is absolutely no difference.
Click to expand...

If you read my post, I've already explained in great detail that there is a huge difference. You're trying to compare words with multiple common meanings to a word with one. If you're not going to get upset about someone saying something is "lame", or "cool", or "wicked", or that it "sucks", when all of those have changed the original meaning of the word, then I really don't know how to explain the difference to you. "Gay" didn't originally mean homosexual. It took on a different meaning. Words do that sometimes.
 
lsfoster said:
If you read my post, I've already explained in great detail that there is a huge difference. You're trying to compare words with multiple common meanings to a word with one. If you're not going to get upset about someone saying something is "lame", or "cool", or "wicked", or that it "sucks", when all of those have changed the original meaning of the word, then I really don't know how to explain the difference to you. "Gay" didn't originally mean homosexual. It took on a different meaning. Words do that sometimes.
Click to expand...

Right on the button! You said it very well, thank you!
 
lsfoster said:
If you read my post, I've already explained in great detail that there is a huge difference. You're trying to compare words with multiple common meanings to a word with one. If you're not going to get upset about someone saying something is "lame", or "cool", or "wicked", or that it "sucks", when all of those have changed the original meaning of the word, then I really don't know how to explain the difference to you. "Gay" didn't originally mean homosexual. It took on a different meaning. Words do that sometimes.
Click to expand...

But if words can take on different meanings, what would stop any of the words I listed from taking on the meaning of a word used to refer to something in a negative light? What "gay" originally meant is really a moot point. So "deaf" originally means that one can't hear, so if people decided to change that meaning, they could certainly do so whenever they want.

I guess since "Black" didn't originally refer to people of African American descent, it would be perfectly acceptable to say "that's so black"?
 
pathymo said:
But if words can take on different meanings, what would stop any of the words I listed from taking on the meaning of a word used to refer to something in a negative light? What "gay" originally meant is really a moot point. So "deaf" originally means that one can't hear, so if people decided to change that meaning, they could certainly do so whenever they want.

I guess since "Black" didn't originally refer to people of African American descent, it would be perfectly acceptable to say "that's so black"?
Click to expand...

Nothing stops them from taking on a different meaning. I don't think you really got the point of my posts. My point isn't that you couldn't create a new meaning for words, but that you're comparing two words that are currently very different. The original meaning of gay is not a moot point at all. It's the crucial difference. Gay is a much more fluid word, and does not exclusively or even concretely refer to homosexual people. Deaf is not the same. It isn't contextual in the same way that gay is.

If you want to start a "deaf as a negative slang" movement, go right ahead. The thing is that gay was already more slang and less explicitly defined, whereas deaf is the exact opposite. I think you're more likely to confuse people than offend them.
 
Back
Top