Since when was the term "homosexual" offensive?

[Kylyssa]

Language shifts are just weird.  I blame the religious right this time.  They twist words so much that the words have to be abandoned and replaced to avoid offense.

Other words they've fucked up:
materialist
evolutionist

[tunghaichuan]

Language shifts are just weird.  I blame the religious right this time.  They twist words so much that the words have to be abandoned and replaced to avoid offense.

Other words they've fucked up:
materialist
evolutionist

I would add:

leftist
liberal

I am both.

I'm going to go with elliebean on this one, there is nothing inherently wrong with the term homosexual, but it is archaic.

[Byronazriel]

Alright, I will stop using any prefixes on the word sexual so long as asexuals, bisexuals, and pansexuals get new words to describe them.

For asexuals I propose we call them dukes and duchesses, collectively and gender neutrally they shall be reffered to as duchies. Asexual communites will be refered to as dukedoms.

Now we need a bisexual, and a pansexual to act as a representative of their sexuality so that we can come up with a new slang term for them.

Also, it is in no way archiac! That's like saying the word penis is archaic, which it isn't. There are other words that are better suited for polite company, but it is still the proper term.

[i_am_i]

Doesn't "asexual" actually mean "not getting any?"

[Byronazriel]

Doesn't "asexual" actually mean "not wanting any?"

Yes.

[i_am_i]

Doesn't "asexual" actually mean "not wanting any?"

Yes.

Interesting. So are you saying that you have no sexual desires, none at all?

[Byronazriel]

That's what asexual means, I am not sexually attracted to anything or anyone. At least I've yet to come across anything that greases my gears.

I'm not saying I wont ever have sex, only that I'd prefer to not have sex.

[Asmodean]

Me, I can with pleasure screw whatever comes my way but prefer females for romance.

And you know what..? However you wish to label me for that, be it heteroflexible, gay, bi, slut, pervert or something else - good or derogatory, you may do so with my blessing. I couldn't care less even if I tried  

[Byronazriel]

pansexual heterophile.

[Asmodean]

pansexual heterophile.

For example.  

[Byronazriel]

Labelling conventions exist for a reason... so anal, OCD ridden, people like me can sleep soundly at night.

[Asmodean]

Labelling conventions exist for a reason... so anal, OCD ridden, people like me can sleep soundly at night.

Your OCD is social-oriented..?

Me, I sometimes have to get up five times a night to check that the door is locked and that the key is in the right place on the table... And a few such things. It's never about something social though.

[Byronazriel]

I do a lot of things... I'm not exactly qualified to make a distinction between what is part of my OCD, and what is just a quirky habit.

I can't eat off certain things, and I tend to organize and label pretty much everything by category. Also I have a problem with fancy things, and I have one dish that I always order at every restaurant I go to. I also have to eat in a particular order. Like if I'm eating pizza I have to eat it counter-clockwise starting from the bottom.

I also can't sleep unless I'm facing north, and a ton of other weird crap.

[AlP]

Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.)
Please use "lesbian" or "gay man" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it has been adopted by anti-gay extremists to suggest that lesbians and gay men are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered â€" notions discredited by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, New York Times and Washington Post restrict usage of the term "homosexual" (See AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style).

This is interestingly nihilistic. Has this been incorporated into the social construct already? Apologies for my laziness; I haven't been paying attention.

[Sophus]

This doesn't make any sense. Gay used to mean something entirely different.

Language shifts are just weird. I blame the religious right this time. They twist words so much that the words have to be abandoned and replaced to avoid offense.

Other words they've fucked up:
materialist
evolutionist

You can add 'liberal' to that list.