Don’t say Gay
An eighth grader’s hilarious public service announcement on the misuse of the word "gay" is making the rounds of the queer interwebz. YouTuber playahata646 says the clip was produced in conjunction with a school project and stars his little brother. If violence would be the right answer is debatable but the the intention surely was a good one
Tolerance isn’t good enough
about 7 hours ago - 7 comments
If you want to learn how to measure the vast distance between “tolerance” and “acceptance,” join the Boy Scouts of America. Yesterday, 61% of 1,400 voting members of the BSA’s National Council voted to “remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone.” Before you start writing “thank you” letters More >
You’re intolerant & a Bully
about 1 day ago - 25 comments
Well, that’s rich. US house representive Jim Bridenstine took the floor in the House this week calling out “the left” (implying something like this exists in US politics) for their “intolerance” of demanding gay youth to be allowed into the boy scouts. Because, you know, if you want everyone to be treated equal you’re being More >
Periodical Political Post *165
about 4 days ago - 16 comments
Queer News French president Hollande signs marriage equality into law Man killed In 5th anti-gay hate crime this month in New York Ukraine lawmakers demand ban on Kiev gay pride parade Girl arrested & expelled from school over gay relationship Other News US government spied on news agency’s phone records Australia secretly starts censoring internet More >
Periodical Political Post *164
about 1 week ago - 26 comments
Queer News Italian PM blocks gay unions plan from own equality minister Hong Kong transgender woman wins right to marry partner Ukrainian parliament drops proposed gay anti-discrimination bill People protest against homophobia in Chile and Cuba Nintendo disables same-sex marriage in popular game Other News US engaged in torture after 9/11, independent review finds Porn’s More >
Moviestar Monday *14
about 1 week ago - 3 comments
Adventure Time Voice Actor Jeremy Shada | More of him here & here +137
Tummy Tuesday *29
about 2 weeks ago - 11 comments
Photo by Saqi. Find him on Tumblr or our own milkboard. +133
Periodical Political Post *163
about 2 weeks ago - 30 comments
Queer News Iceland: World’s first openly gay prime minister quits politics Estonia: 35,000 sign petition to oppose marriage equality Italian equal opportunities minister resigns over homophobia US Boy Scouts may start allowing in gay kids but not adults McDonald’s worker harassed by management for being too gay Other News UK internet providers collaborate on government More >
Jamie Sanders
about 3 weeks ago - 26 comments
Submitted by Mike This is Jamie Sanders. He’s not only good at dancing, he also has a lovely voice (NSFW)… …to find out more about that you can check out his performances at Helix +87




about 1 year ago
hahahahahahahaha
Sooooo awesome.
about 1 year ago
I think sometimes it doesn’t hurt to take some liberties with one’s non violent principles
)
(well, except for the unlucky actor in this video, whose little bro seems very enthusiastic in playing the slapping part
Very funny anyway.
about 1 year ago
that was good.
about 1 year ago
I am proud to see our youth getting the message across in creative and even subversive ways. But I have to wonder whether these kids understand the scope of the problem, which is far more prevalent than mere interjections. There are so many ways in which we repeatedly misuse the term “gay” in everyday dialogue:
- We say “gay pride” when we mean pride.
- We say “gay rights” when we mean LGBT rights.
- We say “gay equality” when we mean sexual freedom.
- We say “gay marriage” when we mean same-sex marriage.
- We say “gay hate” when we mean LGBT hate.
- We say “anti-gay bullying” when we mean anti-LGBT bullying.
- We say “gay sex” when we mean MSM or anal sex.
- We say “gay discrimination” when we mean LGBT discrimination.
- And most importantly, we say “gay” when we mean LGBT.
Simply put, we continually mischaracterize all LGBT socio-political struggles around the gay agenda, and in the process we promulgate the notion that sexual diversity is entirely nonexistent or otherwise dependent on and su to the gay identity. It is 2011, yet only gay and lesbian people matter in the LGBT space. How wrong is that?
Even organizations like PFLAG, GLAAD, GLSEN, and GSN misrepresent their commitment to LGBT issues. According to their initialisms, bisexual and transgender people are nonexistent. Yet the scope of their missions statements suggest otherwise. Supposedly, it would be “too difficult” to correct this glaring disparity by renaming these organizations. Funny, because the general public and our lawmakers ARE expected to change their words to reflect our values. But not the organizations that represent us?!
My greatest irritation, however, is the abhorrent message on the homepage of It Gets Better Project:
“Many LGBT youth can’t picture what their lives might be like as openly gay adults.”
A site that is a safe-harbour for LGBT youth and is devoted to instilling tolerance and combatting adversity, mischaracterizes all LGBT people as gay? How genuine is any social cause if our language still preaches discrimination and marginalization? And the ignorance doesn’t end there. Many other popular sites readily use the term “gay” interchangably with the entire LGBT community.
Change.org has a separate category entitled “Gay Rights” for all action-items pertaining to LGBT issues. Huffington Post has a news section devoted exclusively to “Gay Rights” for all LGBT-related articles and editorials. And there are numerous other offenders, far too many to annotate here. How do we engender equality, by promoting bias?
The reality is simple: Not all LGBT people are gay. The terms are not even synonomous. We can’t just Plug-n-Play the word “gay” whenever we want to spread the message about sexual diversity.
~Randy
about 1 year ago
Sorry, I couldn’t edit the post. That should say:
“we promulgate the notion that sexual diversity is entirely nonexistent or otherwise dependent on and subordinate to the gay identity.”
about 1 year ago
tl;dr
about 1 year ago
I strongly disagree that the context under which Gay is used as you’ve shown counts as misuse. Why it offends you makes no sense at all. Do you identify yourself as Gay, Homosexual, Faggot, Queer, Deviant Bitch? Which one gives you a sense pride? Nothing you’ve stated is a valid argument to me.
about 1 year ago
I’m sure it doesn’t qualify as misuse if you think in black and white terms. I however, am not gay. I identify as bisexual and transgender, neither of which are gay.
The fact you found my post nonsensical is simply a testament to my point: There is so much more to LGBT than only gay and lesbian, but people like yourself are evidently blind to that notion.
~Randy
about 1 year ago
I prefer the word queer as a catch all term. Ever since the word was reclaimed by Queer Nation in the early 1990s it has meant all of us whose sexuality and/or gender expression is different than the norm. As the old chant railed, “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”
about 1 year ago
Indeed but unfortunately queer, altersexual, allosexual, non-normative, etc. are still very esoteric terms. Simply saying queer, most people both straight and gay seem to conflate that with 100% homosexual rather than the all encompassing gay/lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, transexual, asexual, questioning, etc.
So as a corrective device, I suspect that “queer” only reinforces the stereotype that all LGBT people are gay. Just my thoughts,
~Randy
about 1 year ago
Queer is a term that has been used socially for decades to indicate “not normal” and not just “gay males”. Entering “queer history” in wikipedia takes you to the LGBT page, so that would strongly suggest that the word “queer” is not a reference solely to the gay male. But it’s nice to see people attempting to investigate the use of the word.
I might also mention that “gay” generally only refers to males when it’s stated as “gay male”, where is “gay” by itself also refers to the spectrum of non-straight individuals, regardless of the specific social group to which they are a member.
about 1 year ago
I agree with that interpretation and always have. But I also believe that is not the mainstream conception of the term and its etymology. If I say “queer” to most ordinary people (rather than people with even a rudimentary appreciation for sexual diversity) they will likely misinterpret it as a synonym for gay, which is obviously problematic. In the grand scheme of LGBT advocacy, bisexuality and transgenderism are still the most difficult to grasp concepts and routinely overshadowed by “gay issues”.
Even my mother, who strongly supports my sexual orientation, still is confused by my bisexuality, because people are brainwashed by the media into believing everything is black vs. white, and they have no impetus to learn any distinctions beyond that. By stating LGBT however, the existence of bisexuality and transgenderism is reinforced.
You have to remember, we are in a bubble of knowledge, and our perception of the world is very different from what “other people” will grasp about our condition. We often think about the many issues that pertain to us quite lucidly, but that is not the case for those who are not in our same situation. And I don’t blame them either. Why should a straight person feel compelled to learn about the meaning of LGBT when it doesn’t have any bearing on their life? And why should a gay person feel compelled to appreciate the importance of bisexuality and transgenderism when it doesn’t have any bearing on their life? People are always looking through filters, and those filters dramatically colour their personal interpretation of the world.
Just my thoughts,
~Randy
about 1 year ago
ok, this is a different ‘randy’…
I was a bit moved back by your statements, and I’d like to expand on what you say just a bit. You said that we talk about “gay rights”, “gay marriage”, etc. and we should say lgbt rights, etc. I would like to push that just a step further: we should say “rights”, “marriage”, “sex”, “discrimination”, etc.
I say this not to say that lgbt concerns are not valid, or that what is used as shorthand can actually be seen to exclude the very people we are – or at least should be – also promoting. I say this to say that we are all people. To deny a person his rights is just plain wrong.
sorry – don’t mean to take away from your point. Just wanted to note that when we seperate ourselves from the rest of humanity by those four little letters, we open the door to prejudice, to being excepted and excluded.
I do appreciate your comment: I’d never thought in quite that direction.
-r
about 1 year ago
However, if we don’t separate ourselves with a term such as LGBT we become invisible, which, of course, also leads to discrimination and oppression. Most of the time we need to say “LBGT rights”, not just “rights”, to make clear exactly what we are demanding.
-Scott
about 1 year ago
Hi Scott;
you say that if we don’t seperate ourselves, we become invisible…..I would question the goal, then. Is our goal to be visible and acknoweldged, or treated as a person with every right that others who meet the more “standard” or “normal” set of rights and responsiblilites of citizenship?
Was it not MLK, Jr. who declared that an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere? Should we not be demanding equal rights for everyone? Why should one’s orientation, which is simply a part of the person and, shock to republicans, not a choice, be the deciding factor for rights? A black man has every right a white man enjoys, but a gay (lgbt) man does not. The skin color is not a choice, nor is the orientation…why then is it relevent? It is a simple violation of rights, and I wonder that in seperating ourselves we allow the prejudice and disparity to have the foothold.
I hope all understand, I am asking questions, not picking a fight, and hope the debate reflects that.
Josh, perhaps this is for you to create the debate???
hugs all;
-randy.
about 1 year ago
Randy,
I agree with you that ultimately our rights should be just part of the normal set of rights granted to everyone, and all the distinctions between L and G and B and T and whatever will just become part of an accepted diversity that no one will think much about. However, until then, as long as we are being discriminated against as LGBT persons, we must demand our full rights as LGBT persons. If we don’t, it will give the homophobes an opportunity to make the discrimination invisible and unacknowledged, as it was before Stonewall.
about 1 year ago
Hi Scott;
I am new to the whole thing, so I take a lot of direction from others who have been in the life much longer. I cannot help but be saddened that someone would deny a person his/her rights and have an excuse that is, unfortunately, valid to far too many people when there is absolutely no valid reason for it at all.
Thank you all for your patient input.
-randy
about 1 year ago
Let me add some historical perspective: In 1971 I joined the “Gay Students Association” at my college. “Gay” was a catchall used to describe all sexual minority students. Soon the women decided they preferred the term Lesbian. “Transgender” was not widely used yet. Boy lovers or ephebophiles played a prominent role in the early gay rights movement and were also referred to as “gay”. So ironically, the term “gay” was more inclusive in 1971 than the term LGBT is today.
about 1 year ago
Thanks for the amazing perspective! Now I am very curious, were bisexual people prominent in the Gay Student Association? My impression from talking to other bisexual people from that time period is that many were still in the closet or they just pretended to be straight because it was not socially acceptable to like both men and women.
Or perhaps I am looking at that picture the wrong way? If all queer people were considered “gay” circa 1970 as you suggest, then do you mean that we didn’t even feel the need to distinguish between the sexualities? So in effect, the very conception of this LGBT initialism has likely led to more denigration and discrimination within the movement than without over the course of the past few decades?
Take a look at transgenderism as a model for what the sexualities should represent: They still only need one word to unequivocally denote an entire socio-political movement, and as a result you never see the in-fighting and backbiting waged between genderqueer, genderf*cked, Lady boys, butch, glamboys, bois, and other identities. They all stand together as complete equals. Unless you are speaking with other transgender people, the separation of labels don’t even matter — and even then they are still hardly ever employed except in academic or private contexts.
I have to wonder what the motive was for dividing up the sexualities while designating the extant catchall term “gay” with the now primary meaning of homosexual. Was it for political power? Superiority? Or even some more surreptitious purpose?
The irony is that now we are stuck with this ridiculously “politically correct” initialism — that even GLAAD itself urges journalists and educators to AVOID because it is too convoluted for the general public — and a double-meaning for the term gay. Whomever is guilty of such an atrocity as creating the LGBTQ label should be forever condemned.
Thanks again for sharing such fascinating insights,
~Randy
about 1 year ago
You are quite correct that bisexuals were for the most part in the closet still in 1971. You are also correct in that the adoption of different labels stemmed in part from conflicts within the sexual minority community.
The problem with the LGBT acronym is that it is awkward to say and it still isn’t all inclusive. Now, I agree, the term gay is also awkward, but in it’s original incarnation it defined sexual liberation as well as homosexuality. The early gay rights movement was about sexual freedom.
about 1 year ago
Thanks, I think I’ve got it now :) So to sum up your post we were both more open minded and unified as a sexual minority in 1971 than we are 2011. Isn’t it amazing how progress goes backward because of power struggles?
It appears that it was the breakaway of lesbians that initially spurred all of these changes. Not to point fingers, just making an observation. Sad, because now three decades later we are stuck with a more fractured community, and a label that actually encourages people to stand apart rather than come together.
~Randy
about 1 year ago
There has been a tendency throughout history for the oppressed to become the oppressors once they gain a modicum of legitimacy. Likewise, there has been a trend in the “LGBT community” to throw “fringe” elements under the bus in an effort to appear more mainstream and “respectable”. This sad effort to mimic the dominant culture is epitomized by the current push for “gay” marriage, which, don’t get me wrong, I support. But I have never supported progress at the expense of some of our brothers and sisters. That is why, above all, I’m a strong proponent of human rights – period.
about 1 year ago
Good points. I am still baffled beyond belief that we have DOMA locked firmly into our radar when we haven’t even passed ENDA. Likewise the repeal of DADT still excludes transgender servicemembers. Marriage is a luxury IMO, while employment is a necessity. I realize that the extra bundle of rights confered with marriage can be crucial, but then again the “bare necessity” of work vs. love is a no-brainer. Our priorities are seriously amiss.
Moreover, back on the subject at hand, this is what Wikipedia has to say about the split:
“Starting in the mid-1980s in the United States, a conscious effort was underway within what was then called the gay community, to add the term lesbian to the name of all gay organizations that catered to both male and female homosexuals, and to use the terminology of gay and lesbian, or lesbian/gay when referring to that community. So, organizations like the National Gay Task Force became the National Lesbian/Gay Task Force. For many ardent feminist lesbians, it was also important that the L come first, lest an L following a G become another symbol of male dominance over women. In the 1990s, this was followed by another equally concerted push to include the terminology specifically pointing out the inclusion of bisexuals and transgender people, reflecting an end to the intra-community debate as to whether these other sexual minorities were part of the same sexual liberation movement.”
This corroborates your account of the growing collective discontinuity. Thanks for sharing,
~Randy
about 1 year ago
One additional factor to think about is how totally oppressive society was back in the ’50′s and ’60′s for all people that didn’t fit within the narrow “acceptable” male and female roles. The ’70′s were a rebellion against that oppression, be we, as a community, simply had not acquired the social consciousness that we have now. We did a lot of things that we look back on now as silly or worse, but it was the best we could achieve back then. For instance, because gay men had been universally dismissed as pathetic “pansies” for decades, we overreacted to the “clone look” of hypermasculinism of the disco era (example: Freddy Mercury of Queen). We also over-demanded that people choose between gay and straight — you’re either one of us or not one of us. We thought bisexuality must be a cop-out, a cover-up, or just a phase. It was a threat to our still fragile “gay” identity. While these are seen as obvious overreactions now, they were understandable and in some ways necessary at the time. We were in the process of working through our own internalized homophobia, in addition to fighting for our rights within the larger society.
By far the best evocation of just how totally oppressive the society was back then is the BBC movie “Stonewall”, directed by Nigel Finch. If you are a young person and haven’t seen that movie, I highly recommend you rent or borrow a copy. As you watch it, if you think, “It couldn’t have possibly been that oppressive.”, please trust me — yes, that is the way it was. The movie also accurately shows both the diversity, and the divisions, within the gay community, as it was back then. Plus, it is just a really good movie.
about 1 year ago
Scott: I haven’t seen that movie so thanks for recommending it. I can attest to the oppressiveness of that era. I was 13 in 1963, aware that I was gay and terrified anyone would find out. Homosexuality was a taboo subject that people only whispered about. You are right about the missteps of the gay rights movement in the 70′s and 80′s. At this time ageism also became an oppressive part of the gay male culture. There was a lot of pressure to associate only with your own age group and those over 40 could get lost for all anyone cared. This, of course, reflected the dominant culture where youth is worshiped, but it was magnified in the gay male community and is still prevalent today.
about 1 year ago
Islanddreamer,
I agree with you about ageism, but I think it has been with us all along, especially in the heady Disco period of the ’70′s. We just don’t remember how ageist we were back then. That’s something I really like about Milkboys — Josh welcomes all age groups and there isn’t any ageism that hinders anyone’s participation. Plus I really enjoy interacting with the younger posters.
about 1 year ago
Over-dramatized, but very cute and a good message (when you can get past the older brother’s smile after the first “contact”).
And the “violent” slap wasn’t real — but I give who did this video good marks for camera angle and editing — very convincing — but the sound gave it away. :-)
about 1 year ago
Fair enough the concept is a little tongue in cheek but stating that using violence may be debatable is in my opinion very wrong. Even in humour we can give out the wrong signals, education through violence shouldn’t be acceptable under any circumstances. *steps down from soapbox.
about 1 year ago
Here we go again political Correctness at it best im sick of it!!! It goes to far Eg actress is now actor no i will allways say actress. Im gay and when people say oh thats gay, im not offended and neither should you be. gay has servral meanings and we need to lighten up!!!
about 1 year ago
So it is OK by you when some refering to something bad, negative or disgusting as “Gay”. People who hate Gay people love using the word this way specifically to reinforce negative thoughts and behaviors towards the LGBT community. Anything they don’t like they say “Thats Gay”. This taking every and any opportunity to show how much they hate Gay people.
about 1 year ago
Ok no thats not what im saying, but we need to lighten up the word gay theses days has servral meanings and if some guys a mucking around and say “oh thats gay” so what its not negitive so don’t take offence. but if someone comes up to you arrgesively “hey you f’ing fag F off ” then yeah thats a problem. polital correctness has gone too far!!!! if you take offence at every little thing thats siad your life will suck, as saying goes pick your battles and someone saying oh thats gay is not one of them!!!
about 1 year ago
I don’t think 100% political correctness is not needed in the world. The video is funny, fun is okay.
about 1 year ago
People who take offence at the “misuse” of the word gay, take themselves way too seriously. It’s all about what you read into it. Swearing’s about venting anger, rather than verbal abuse and I think it’s (typically and overly) gay if you make a fuss about someone’s choice of words. A word like “stupid” is just as offensive: you can’t help being mentally challenged any more than you can being gay. Well… LGBT and the like… because gay in its original meaning should be a way of life everyone should adhere to =P.
Ultimately: don’t whine and moan about trivialities. You’re just as sad as christian fanatics when you take such a strong point over mere words.
about 1 year ago
You are not Gay are you? It is a misuse and abuse of the word and you know it. Have you ever experience being tormented or harrassed? This is just one of a number of tactics used. It allows one to indirectly insult anyone who might be Gay who is within earshot. Gay used to mean something happy how ironic it is being used to describe something negative.
about 1 year ago
Words can only have power over you if you let them have power over you. I’d just let this one go. Unless it’s a slur being directed at a specific person, it’s not a big enough deal, and there are so many more important issues to worry about.
I once used to complain about people using the derogatory word “tranny”, because it is insensitive. But then gay people started pointing out that I need to lighten up and not take what people say so seriously. It’s not the end of the world.
So now that the shoe is on the other foot, I will say to gay people: Perhaps it’s time to take your own advice.
~Randy
about 1 year ago
Thanks love
.
@Mezzo: I am gay, came out when I was 12 or 13. I just choose not to be bothered by people calling something gay. Eff, even I call stuff gay. The word is not meant derogatory towards me, or you for that matter. I’d honestly be more offended when someone stepped up to me and called me a tablecloth in a harsh voice.
Maybe I’m just comfortable about my sexuality, maybe it’s self confidence, maybe it’s indifference and maybe it’s because I had the good fortune to grow up in Western Europe.
But I can’t understand why you’re offended by someone (usually unknowingly) misusing the term “gay”. It’s sad really, because there’s no point in ruining your own day over it, since quite frankly, you’re the only one who gives a toss. Admirable, albeit a bit misplaced.
x Flo
about 1 year ago
finally someone with some sense this is what i was saying in an above post things like this go too far, surely people you can tell when someone is joking around or being hurtful, its common sense, we don’t need to as far as trying to ban a simple saying, that siad there is far more important things in this world to worry about than some silly saying.
about 1 year ago
Words can kill, my friend. Whether it is intended to be verbal abuse or not, people will take words very seriously. I have been verbally bullied in the past and it made me feel like shit, no matter how much I tried to cheer myself up or not care what they said. And other people in the world will unfortunately end their lives over words. If that’s not serious enough for people then there may be no hope in this world.
If we’re talking about political correctness, I think it’s totally appropriate to bring up the term ‘gay’. How the hell do you think ‘gay’ became synonymous to stupid or weird in the first place? Do we ever say “This project is so straight” (in a negative connotation). I mean, go to thesaurus.com and look up the word straight… one of it’s synonyms is “correct”. Think about it. Think about where our society is going here.
And about the christian fanatics, I’m not opposed to them, because they’re fighting for what they believe in and they have every right, as they should have, to do so. Don’t we have the right to fight for what we believe in?
I’m only making a big deal out of this because I know there are people out there, including myself, who are offended.. because that’s just how we are. And there are also people out there who will harm themselves or worse because of the things people say. People see things differently and that’s the whole point behind accepting others in society.
about 1 year ago
I use gay all the time to mean somethings fucked, just part of the language around here.
Political correctness is gaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
about 1 year ago
*steals for BlueGhostskater*
about 1 year ago
that video was gay
about 1 year ago
During the 50′s if something was referred to as gay it had a more disgusting of violent innuendo. Now it seems to simply mean different.
about 1 year ago
Okay that slap in the face looked like it hurt!
about 1 year ago
I burst out laughing at least 2-3 times during this clip.
No, of course violence is not the answer, but the clip doesn’t necessarily promote that. Rather, it promotes getting another’s attention so that the message can be delivered: saying “gay” in that derisive content is wrong, and offensive itself.
Pretty cute, actually. Thanks Josh.
about 1 year ago
Wow, It seems as if some of you don’t understand that for many gay people using the word gay to mean something negative is offensive. We have perfectly good swear words that can be used in the word’s place that get your point across – if it’s fucked then just say “it’s fucked.”
about 1 year ago
Stupid campaign. Total waste of time and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way language is used.
It’s particularly ironic that after the first slap he should say, ‘God! What was that for?’ because it perfectly demonstrates what I mean. Shouting ‘God!’ in that situation has nothing to do with religion does it? He’s not appealing to or complaining to a deity is he?
Christians (sensible ones) don’t even get offended by that usage.
But a generation ago, they would have said just the same as gays say now: ‘Don’t you know what you’re saying?’ The point is these two exclamations have a use which is totally removed from their original meanings and it is UTTERLY mindless to get wound up.
about 1 year ago
No, it’s not the same thing at all. “Gay” is an adjective, while “God” is not.
about 1 year ago
Not to mention that, unlike god, gay people are not just a fairy tale.
about 1 year ago
ssh… don’t wake sleeping anklebiters :)
about 1 year ago
Good one. Kind of like what gay people say about bisexual people. It’s just a myth.
about 1 year ago
Josh, sometimes you come across as very bright. Sometimes you come across as a total idiot.
Well done for having a pop at god. Yeah, really, well done.
Now tell me how it has the slightest relevance to my point? God doesn’t need to be real for my point to stand.
(Religion and people who do believe in god – and might potentially take offence – are just as real as homosexuality and homosexuals…)
about 1 year ago
Forgive me for not taking a myth seriously that is used to go after queer people whenever possible.
If someone would tell you that he honestly believes that our world was made when a cute pink dragon masturbated on his fluffy cloud of cotton candy you probably wouldn’t consider him to be sane even ‘tho there is just as much evidence for that theory as for the one about Jesus & the Christian god.
So if someone believes in such obvious nonesense he’ll have to live with the consequences. Especially if said nonesense is spreading lies and hate about very real things like homosexuality.
about 1 year ago
I think the operative word is “used to”. Not all Christians disapprove of queer people. In fact, the majority of churches on our university campus (the University of Illinois, one of the top engineering schools in the U.S. and home of the largest Greek system in the world) openly espouse LGBT concerns. Some even have special programs and services dedicated to queer issues. I have friends of many different faiths from Christianity to Paganism to Satanism who would put their life on the line for me, while I also have gay friends that give me the cold shoulder and belittle me because my transgenderism and bisexuality makes them “uncomfortable.” I challenge you to try figuring that one out.
So yeah, I’d notch it down a bit on the overly generalized Christian hostility and focus that grudge on those who are injuring the cause, which in some cases is our own people. Discrediting religion because of a handful of ignorant, outspoken, fanatical bigots — which do not even speak for the millions of more reasoned people of faith — never helps anybody. Hate merely begets hate.
Regards <3
~Randy
about 1 year ago
Duh, al this differentiating just stops us from making cheap shots at a minority here. And as faggots we (= someone else, somewhere else and/or not necessarily within the last decade) are bullied so much that we clearly have earned the right to bully someone else in exactly the same way. Just for the fun of it!
about 1 year ago
“Well done for having a pop at god. Yeah, really, well done.”
Poor, poor, terrance — just like dewey and a few other religious idiots, you get all riled up when someone dares to talk about truth and facts about your bully ‘god’ — not to mention all those bullies (those that “spread the word [LIES]“) that maim and kill “under the name of that idiot myth.”
No one said anything about “religion” not being real. It’s the premise of those stupid religions that aren’t real — and most intelligent people do understand and realize that …… it’s just the mentally confused such as you and your ilk that steadfastly (to the point of being crazy) cling onto those ignorant notions. After all, everything but certain locales have been proven to be fictitious (no matter what you will conjure up as pathetic “proof.”
So, YES, “(Religion and people who do believe in god – and might potentially take offence – are just as real as homosexuality and homosexuals…).” We (the intelligent) have no problems accepting the reality of “Religion and people who do believe in god,” — it’s just what they believe in that isn’t real. And they take offense of their own stupidity? My response: Tough shit.
about 1 year ago
No, gay is a noun as well.
about 1 year ago
Apoc, that has nothing at all to do with the arguments here.
Besides it probably isn’t a correct analysis. God here is used as an exclamation/interjection without currency as a normal part of speech. And although he doesn’t in this clip, gay with the meaning people are complaining about is most often used in the same way.
about 1 year ago
ok i don’t belive in god eaither but this person is not trying to prove that but his points are very vaild indeed, im gay and i think sometimes the gay community takes themselves way to seriously and they tend to blow things out of proportion. This is so one of those times saying the sentence oh thats gay, IS NOT OFFENSIVE in anyway shape or form. See it in the context it is ment stop seeing things that aren’t there. Common sense people, you know when someone is joking or not, eg “:you fucking faggot”: thats offensive!!!
about 1 year ago
For those of you having trouble understanding how using the word ‘gay’ in a negative/coloquial context can hurt, try this: Next time you want to describe a situation/object/activity as ‘gay’ , replace the word ‘gay’ with your own name. Do the same thing in your mind whan you hear other people misuse ‘gay’ in that way. Perhaps you’ll begin to understand that constantly hearing negative feedback associated with who you are can lead to negative feelings about yourself and the world around you.
I agree, btw, that words only have power if we allow them to. However, the power we give to words as a society tends to overide our personal preferences.
about 1 year ago
Funny, it made me smile!!!
about 1 year ago
Wow, I am amazed at all the differences of opinions here over something that obviously is offensive towards gay people. The word gay apparently over the years has had different meanings, depending on the era. I remember what my own mother had to say about it, back in the 1960′s. She was very old school, being born in 1916, and I recall her lamenting about how the ‘homosexuals’ stole the lovely word gay, which she used to love using, to describe feelings of happiness, being carefree, and joyful, but nowadays it’s used to mean something so dirty and ugly. I recall cringing over her remarks, and knew I’d never be able to tell her I was one of them. So nowadays when I hear people use the word to mean something negative, I recall what my mother had to say about it, and believe that person has the same old fashioned misguided views my old mother had, and that they hate the ‘dirty homosexuals’ just as much as she did. When I hear ‘that’s gay’ or ‘that’s so gay’, it translates in my mind to ‘that’s as bad as being a homosexual’. At any rate, I find it just plain sad.
about 1 year ago
Randy,
Your points are well taken, but they are entirely based on your last statement that “Not all LGBT people are gay. The terms are not even synonomous.” Most of the people and organizations that use the term “gay”, however, would say they are using the term “gay” in a highly inclusive way.
The term “gay” has been troublesome for years, primarily because there has never been an accepted alternate term for “homosexual male”, even though “Lesbian” has meant “homosexual female” for centuries. In the early underground use of the term “gay” before World War II, it meant primarily effeminate males. It was a positive alternative to the derogatory “pansy”. A good example of that use was Cary Grant’s line “I just went gay all of a sudden” in the 1938 movie “Bringing Up Baby”. Back then, in the general public’s mind, all homosexual males were transgendered. It wasn’t until the Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” in 1948 that the idea of a “normal” acting homosexual male or a bisexual male became generally accepted. In the fifties and sixties, the term “gay” broadened it’s meaning, but also became more more vague. Sometimes it meant just “homosexual males”, sometimes “all homosexuals”, and sometimes “all non-straight people”. The confusion was also the confusion in society in general, because the categories of “bisexual” and “transgender” were not generally accepted as valid. Immediately after Stonewall, the term “Gay Liberation” was meant to be inclusive of everyone, but the gay males involved, like society in general, tended to ignore everyone else. As various groups demanded recognition, progressively more and more inclusive terms were used: “gay and Lesbian”, “LGB”, and “LGBT”. During all of this, the term “gay” maintained its narrow meaning, “gay male”, and its inclusive meaning, “all non-straight people”. with much confusion. In the 1990′s, young people reclaimed the term “Queer” and rejected the term “Gay”, much to the discomfort of older “gay” people like me. Then “LGBTQ” came into use. But that also became vague, because ‘Q’ could mean “Queer” or “Questioning”. Now we have “LGBTQA”, with “Allies” added.
When PFLAG started in 1972, it was called “POG”, “Parents of Gays”, but it quickly changed its name to include Lesbians. It has chosen to not expand its name to PFLAGBTQA, but it is definitely an inclusive organization, and all people are welcome except homophobes. I’m sure the same is true for GLAAD, GLSEN and all the other organizations that use “GL” in their name. For those of us in the older generations, the term “gay” has always meant to be inclusive, at least as far as our own awareness would let us in the 1970′s and 1980′s.
The use of the term “gay” as a derogation, such as in “that’s so gay” is recent, probably from the 1990′s generation of school age children. Before the 1990′s the term “gay” was always positive and inclusive, however it was used. For most of it’s uses, it has remained positive and inclusive. Only for the recent generation of young people has “gay” had any negative connotations. I distinctly remember being very troubled and confused when I heard the phrase “That’s so gay.” from one of my community college students in the early 2000′s. I didn’t know if it was positive, and therefore appropriate, or derogatory, in which case I had the responsibility to say something and stop it’s further use. The video in this posting is actually arguing against a very recent (in my viewpoint, at least) use of the term “gay”.
So your arguments about how “LGBT” and “gay” are not synonymous are noted and acknowledged. But please be aware for those of us in the older generations, and for pre-2000′s use of the word “gay”, it is meant to be inclusive of all LGBTQA, non-absolutely-straight, people. I hope it remains so.
about 1 year ago
Thank you for your valuable insights. While I appreciate the many historic connotations of the word and its colloquial associations, the fact however remains that if “gay” as an identity label denotes people of an exclusive same-sex attraction, then it absolutely should not carry any implied class rank or authority. No sexuality is superior.
While it is admirable to posit that “gay” should remain an inclusive term, the rational falls flat when we consider that gay today is also used as a separate and distinct identity in the LGBT initialism. If it truly were indistinct then why do 100% homosexual people get to claim their own label and simultaneously subject all other non-heteronormative people to that same label? That’s indicative of a superiority complex — or simply errant thinking.
For “gay” to effectually signify both ONE and ANY simultaneously is an oxymoron and only invites confusion. This duality is even elucidated within your second paragraph. As well, in its latest media styleguide, GLAAD actually encourages this dubious usage, but then as usual signifies that it is acceptable to still separate out gay and lesbian — but foregoes any mention of bisexuality, of course.
Times change and our language should change to reflect our values. We value diversity and open communication, therefore we need to do away with this naive and simplistic assumption that all people who are not straight are gay. I take pride in my sexual identity. I take pride in the fact I can self-identify. To subject me to the sexual identity label of a specific segment of our LGBT population that routinely dismisses my own sexuality and that proclaims that “Bisexuals are on the road to becoming gay” or “Bisexuality is just a phase”, is both an offense and completely counter-intuitive.
Further, you stated that historic organizations like PFLAG, GLAAD etc. separately distinguish lesbian people but no other sexual identities. This merely proves my point: Gay is NOT indicative of inclusiveness but exclusiveness. How is it that gay women can demand a formal separation from and formal recognition by gay men when they are still the SAME sexuality, but conveniently when it comes to bisexual and pansexual people, then “gay” is somehow just good enough. That is not a double standard?
Obviously for gay people this terminological disparity is not an issue. Why should it be. You already have your own label. And you even have the power to subject that label of yours onto all other LGBT people under the pretext that you are speaking for everyone. Such generosity is hardly overwhelming.
If this is how we function as a community, then I’d almost much rather see bisexual, pansexual, and transgender people disband entirely from the movement. I maintain that we can never achieve true sexual freedom unless we ourselves possess the courage to question our adherence to the norms.
~Randy
about 1 year ago
Ahh you are Bisexual & Transgender. Well that’s changes everything doesn’t it. Don’t assume that all Gay people think and behave alike. I know there are some who think Bisexuals are just Homosexuals who don’t want to admit it. You can only be Gay or Str8 in their eyes. I personally would not refer to you as Gay even though a percentage of you divided between Gay & Str8. As for your gender I would only refer to as a boy nothing more, nothing less. But you have to admit the word Gay does bother you on some level otherwise what was the point of your post. For the record I don’t see the world in black & white, I see the full range of the color spectrum. I can do no less if I want to see the world as it really is and you as you really are. I do apologize for some of my language.
I still think it’s unrealistic to ask human beings to suppress their emotions in order to make bigots comfortable. If they want to say they don’t like something just say so without bringing the word Gay into it. They are hitting two targets with one stone in effect. They are not oblivious to the alternate meaning of the word. It’s verbal abuse, which could eventually lead to physical abuse. It always starts with words or propaganda which escalates to something worse. Words do have power. Ask a Holocaust survivor.
about 1 year ago
PS. If it is okay with you, I’d like to include your write-up in my personal blog (credited of course) since it offers a very nice history of the word.
about 1 year ago
Randy, please use it any way you see fit. I am honored.
-Scott
about 1 year ago
Thanks Scott. And I’m sorry to get so worked up and feel the need to vent. It wasn’t you I was targeting, but it was the realization of how the flaws of our humanity always repeat themselves in every socio-political struggle. Your history lesson was very much appreciated, and I have learned so much to help me to better empower myself and hopefully my peers. Thanks again and again!
about 1 year ago
How can some of you take this so lightly and consider it pointless to get worked up over it?
What if all gays used straight in a negative way? Like saying, “Wow he’s so straight, what a loser.” Straights would look at gays like they’re crazy. There is a reason people use gay, not straight, when we’re talking about something negative. If you’re gay and you use the term gay in its negative meaning, you are in fact offending yourself whether you believe it or not!
And if words don’t matter to you, then whenever you see someone make a mistake or do something stupid, just call them gay, especially if you don’t know them. Or call their prized possession gay. Will you wonder why people get so worked up over it then?
about 1 year ago
I can see ‘straight’ being a pejorative in the sense of boring or predictable…
I wonder if I could make people copy it… :)
about 1 year ago
All of this subjective nonsense about the english language is GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY.
about 1 year ago
It is actually very important. Teenagers commit suicide because of abusive language.
about 1 year ago
One must be somewhat open to how language changes and evolves.
When ‘gay’ first started being used, I thought it surely offensive… once it becomes as pervasive as it is now… I think it largely loses its offensiveness…the word has stopped being ‘gay’=lame because gay people are lame…and it’s just another word for lame. The link and origin of the word are now lost.
I’ve even found myself using the term now, meaning no offense (obviously).
That being said, I like that a boy this age took the time and had the balls to make the video.
about 1 year ago
Interesting comparison you make here. I never came across the word “lame” as meaning unconvincing and worthless till recently – perhaps it was used in the USA before and only gained international currency with the internet. I suppose people who have a physical disability could be equally upset by the use of the word “lame”. After all, they may well as a group suffer more bullying than gay people, though I don’t know if statistics exist on this. Words and their meanings change, and as others have noted the word “gay” has gone through several incarnations. Personally I regret the loss of the meaning of carefree – you simply cannot use it in that context now without someone (wilfully?) misinterpreting it. Language is a hard thing to pin down, and an even harder thing to regulate. Who knows what gay will mean 100 years from now?
about 1 year ago
I tell those in my life who use this term that it can be interpreted by some as offensive and that it means being gay is a bad thing when they do. I let them know that I have been gay all my life and that there is nothing wrong with me. They respect me enough to stop using it in a derogatory way. I understand what they mean by the usage, and ironically I hear myself use it too. I guess it falls under the same usage as “nigga”. Gay was originally used to describe happiness, still is in some parts. aint language wonderful? :)
about 1 year ago
The use of the word “nigga” would be more equivalent to the use of the word “faggot”. Neither are used as a sign of respect nor does it fill one with a sense of pride. If you believe so then have some one address at all times using these words rather than Mister or Miss. Put on your driver license, or job application. let that be your title. maybe Black people should refer to themselves as monkeys.
Have we lost the ability to respect each other and ourselves? I feel like I’m living in an Orwellian nightmare. Intelligence is Ignorance, War is Peace, Hate is Love. Insults are complements. Everything is so mean spirited. It sad reallly because it wasn’t always this way. We have been convinced that it is thru politics, music, movies, TV etc. It seems bad behavior is rewarded and good behavior is penalized. Just look at the quality of candidates running in the U.S. We don’t work together anymore for the common good because we selfishly try to tear each other down. Have we devolved into careless heartless human beings?
Generations after us will have no clue things were better or could be better, if you we treat each other better. When we use hateful words towards ones we supposedly love we’ve adopted a cold hearted mentality that is not reflective of our true humanity. Negative words do not lead to a positive world. Is it impossible to have a world in which people can co-exist peacefully & comfortably?