That's so gay!

Jestor wrote: Arcade is FABULOUS

You just had to get one in there Jestor right :whistle:

(lol sorry 'Cade, I couldn't resist buddy but I think you know me enough that you'll take it as humor)

Jestor wrote:

Not only, does those "gay" members need to be less sensitive, but those who are not need to be more sensitive...

I hope my message is clear...

Perfectly ...

... now we'll see who comes around to resist the clarity.

Tao Te Ching 32 :

The Tao can't be perceived.
Smaller than an electron,
it contains uncountable galaxies. If powerful men and women
could remain centred in the Tao,
all things would be in harmony.
The world would become a paradise.
All people would be at peace,
and the law would be written in their hearts. When you have names and forms,
know that they are provisional.
When you have institutions,
know where their functions should end.
Knowing when to stop,
you can avoid any danger. All things end in the Tao
as rivers flow into the sea.

I've said (complained really) recently that even for a crappy as others have treated homosexual in our culture, I feel that the group who have been the nastiest to homosexuals are the homosexuals themselves. And why is that ? Principally, because to make a stand for "gay rights" it had to become a subculture, it had to become a movement, a milieu ... and as such inevitably form in-groups and out-groups. And gays have become, whether by reaction or affirmation, one of the most largely intolerant groups in the whole "sub-culture" universe. Even pointing this out, I've been accused of "latent homophobia", described as that I cannot accept my own homosexuality.

So -- in a way, all of this cataloguing is pretty damned gay !!

I can sort of validate the term ... though it is not that I want to. If, for example, people were using "gay" to mean reactionary, discriminatory, superficial or ostentatious intellectualism, then I might not object to the term.

It is generally wise to not put too much importance on a quality of oneself. For some it is race, for others it is a fashionable disorder, for homosexuals it is sexuality -- and in all these cases, so much of one's self-identity focuses on that one quality to the exclusion of others. And it is only the name of the quality that carries the concept - and hence the sympathy or revolt we feel about it.

I am a man, first and foremost, with all of the strengths and weaknesses of character and body that that condition implies. Then I am a Jedi Knight, an instrument of peace - cultivating mindful attention and compassionate kindness as I may, moment by moment. Then I am a citizen and functionary of the République Française with the obligations, duties and rights which that carries. I happen to be gay as well, but it isn't my species, my religion or my political affiliation. It is happen-stance of my being ... nothing more. I don't feel that it is 'abject', but I don't feel any more inclined to 'pride' about it than I would about being left-handed ...

Likewise, I don't feel any particular offence when one employs this term in a derogatory manner, I don't wish to defend it either. Language is changing very quickly now - a result of the state of the art of communications technology and globalisation - and it follows that values change as quickly with it. If this is really so intolerable, just wait a year or two when some other derogatory remark will replace it.

how about:

Using the word gay to refer to homosexuals is oppressive of heterosexuals because it makes them feel as though they cannot have happy relationships.

ren wrote: how about:

Using the word gay to refer to homosexuals is oppressive of heterosexuals because it makes them feel as though they cannot have happy relationships.

Can anyone have happy relationships ? :huh:

Alexandre Orion wrote:

ren wrote: how about:

Using the word gay to refer to homosexuals is oppressive of heterosexuals because it makes them feel as though they cannot have happy relationships.

Can anyone have happy relationships ? :huh:

That's the point of LBGT rights; so that we can be miserable as the rest of you people

Would most people say 'That's retarded!' in front of a disabled person? Even if they laugh about it, those words are going to penetrate that person's psyche in some way.

It's the same for gay people when someone uses the word 'gay' in a similar manner. No matter how much armor we wear or how capable we are of controlling our feelings and perceptions, a part of us will still wonder if we're broken, defective, or not good enough.

I didn't post the article on behalf of the gay community or because I felt compelled to perpetuate political correctness. I simply felt the article was well written and accessible and expressed reasonable thoughts on something that's been bothering me for many years.

Innocent people have died because idiots have believed gay = bad. That's reason enough to drop that connotation from everyday language.

It's "just a word" only so far as people are enlightened enough to understand that. The people likely to hurt others for their sexual predisposition don't generally operate from an especially advanced level of etymological understanding...

In my previous post, I said that some need to be less sensitive, and others, more sensitive....

Words don't hurt me either....

But, this only shelters me from the, uh, "ignorance"? of others...

Being empathetic toward others, makes me aware that they may be offended from words that I speak, so I do need to be cautious.... (I understand, not anyone (or at least most) here, but, the entire world are not Jedi either... ...)...

So, if I wish to not offend, I need to be aware that regardless if people shouldn't be offended, some still are....

And, as a guardian of peace, acting like I don't have my hand in how others feel, wouldn't be very observant of me, would it?

I really hate when some says I'm not caring, lol... But, the simple fact is sometimes, I am simply ignorant ofvothers discomfort, and when I find out, unless I find pleasure in it, I should endeavor to stop...

@Ren, I don't really understand your comment because "gay" means nothing about having a happy relationship....

If anyone has gay friends, they will know there are many unhappy gay relationships because the person is as screwed up as any straight person... Nothing to do with being gay, lol...

I only became aware of the homosexual meaning of "gay" when I was a teenager. Before that, to me it only meant "happy".

Name anything you do not like. Say, "black hats". Anyone who wears a black hat has, in your opinion, no sense of hat taste. And by extension, language evolution and all that, "black hatted" means someone who has no taste in hats.

Point is, people who don't like black hats and people who like black hats will always disagree on the matter. Doesnt matter what you call it. It doesnt even need to have a name.

Oppression is to force people to like black hats. Or to dislike black hats. Or to like black hatters or to dislike black hatters.

If you're going to say conscience, belief, speech are human rights, they have to be human rights for everyone. Not just when it's convenient. As such it must always go both ways.

Anyway.gays will always see homosexuality as a good thing. and gay haters will always see homosexuality as a bad thing. Want to ban usage of that word to protect sensitivities? All it's going to do is piss people off, and those people who once thought that "this is so gay" are going to start beating people up for being homos.