Happy Atheist Forum

I'm hanging out in the about.com gay life forum, I hang out in lots of forums... they have an asexual sub-forum, and I found this: http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-gaylife&tid=6915

It's a list of offensive terms to avoid, and homosexual is the first one!

I've used the term homosexual exclusively, and went out of my way to avod the terms gay and lesbian specifically to avoid offence.

If homosexual is offensive does that mean that bisexual, and asexual are as well? If so then what do I call myself?  

I also have a problem with the implication that sexual preference is the same as sexual orientation, but that's an entirely different rant.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"If homosexual is offensive does that mean that bisexual, and asexual are as well? If so then what do I call myself?

Greg. I think you should call yourself Greg.

I believe in nature. I think homosexuality is a perversion of nature, therefore the word is an insult.

Quote from: "hunterman317"I believe in nature. I think homosexuality is a perversion of nature, therefore the word is an insult.

How can nature be perverted?

I don't find the term offensive, as much as a little archaic and slightly cringeworthy. Gay and lesbian are preferred terms.

Quote from: "hunterman317"I believe in nature. I think homosexuality is a perversion of nature, therefore the word is an insult.

You realize, of course, that there are other critters which practice homosexuality, right?

Homosexual isn't archiac, as it's still in everyday use. One of the biggest problems I have with this is that the term homosexual is supposed to be offensive, but bisexual and asexual are not.

I'm sorry but I can't in any way see the words "gay" and "lesbian" as anything other than slang, at best they're euphemisms and at worst they're pejoratives.

Quote from: "hunterman317"I believe in nature. I think homosexuality is a perversion of nature, therefore the word is an insult.

I don't know if this is serious, but I'll assume it is.

Quotehunterman317 wrote:I'm 19, and I choose to be abstinent. So thanks for your support.

Not me, but some might say abstinence is unnatural, a perversion even.
Does abstinence make you shiny and pure, able to identify the unclean?

Personally I have a problem with people who pass judgement for such petty reasons.
I wouldn't describe them as a perversion of nature, more your ugly manifestation of human nature.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "hunterman317"I believe in nature. I think homosexuality is a perversion of nature, therefore the word is an insult.

I don't know if this is serious, but I'll assume it is.

Quotehunterman317 wrote:I'm 19, and I choose to be abstinent. So thanks for your support.

Not me, but some might say abstinence is unnatural, a perversion even.
Does abstinence make you shiny and pure, able to identify the unclean?

Personally I have a problem with people who pass judgement for such petty reasons.
I wouldn't describe them as a perversion of nature, more your ugly manifestation of human nature.

My purpose was not to offend, but to contribute. I know my views go against a lot of people's on the forum because of my upbringing. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Quote from: "hunterman317"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "hunterman317"I believe in nature. I think homosexuality is a perversion of nature, therefore the word is an insult.

I don't know if this is serious, but I'll assume it is.

Quotehunterman317 wrote:I'm 19, and I choose to be abstinent. So thanks for your support.

Not me, but some might say abstinence is unnatural, a perversion even.
Does abstinence make you shiny and pure, able to identify the unclean?

Personally I have a problem with people who pass judgement for such petty reasons.
I wouldn't describe them as a perversion of nature, more your ugly manifestation of human nature.

My purpose was not to offend, but to contribute. I know my views go against a lot of people's on the forum because of my upbringing. Sorry if I offended anyone.

That's not how human interaction works. If I said "I think all people who use quagmire as an avatar are assholes, but no offense" I would be a dick. This is what you have attempted to do. On top of which homosexuality is very common in the animal world. So if it's a perversion of nature why is it so common in nature. Who or what is perverting nature into gayness?


Why would you even choose to include the whole perversion part in your post unless trying to get a rise from someone? The thread is about wether or not the word homosexual is offensive not about its rightness or wrongness or what our personal opinions of gay people are just wether or not the word Homosexual is insulting. Why share this non sequiter?

Quote from: "hunterman317"I believe in nature. I think homosexuality is a perversion of nature, therefore the word is an insult.

...
I'm not even gonna start...  

Quote from: "hunterman317"My purpose was not to offend, but to contribute. I know my views go against a lot of people's on the forum because of my upbringing. Sorry if I offended anyone.

This is a story of a couple, Brian and Norm who met in the 1950s and lived together for over fifty years.
Norm in recent years developed Alzheimer's and is now in a nursing home.
If you can listen to this and condemn their love as "a perversion of nature," your heart is cold and I pity you.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/ ... 3_1440.mp3 (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/03/tsy_20100313_1440.mp3)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2010/2839237.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2010/2839237.htm)

I like this comment

QuoteAnnie :
Brian, thankyou so much for sharing your heart with us. Love is love no matter who it's between. I could only wish to have memories like yours and to have experienced the kind of love you both have for each other. I'm very sorry for your loss but also happy that you both had so much love for each other. Hold your memories close to your heart and thankyou for sharing what has obviously been a difficult time for you. My admiration for you is more than I can say in words. Thankyou too RN for this beautiful and respectful story of true love. Should be mandatory listening to all school age children.

Ah, but Puddin'Head, you're treatin' them homerseckshuls as -- as -- people!

Wait, what?  Homosexual is now considered offensive?  Why?  I prefer it to gay because it isn't slang.  What about heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual?  If those terms are not also offensive, why not?

I don't know anyone who identifies themselves as homosexual; I know lots and lots of people who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, etc., and not as a slang term. If they want to use slang, the have other terms, but those vary from person to person, and some of those are considered offensive in varying degrees, especially when used by straight (slang for heterosexual?) people. It's up to the people in a community, not people outside of it, to decide which terms are offensive to use towards people within that community.

Archaic was not the best word to use. It's has fallen out of favor and other terms are preferred. If you're still using it in regular conversation, you should probably stop, so that you don't sound ignorant.

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

Quote from: "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

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.

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.

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

Quote from: "i_am_i"Doesn't "asexual" actually mean "not wanting any?"

Yes.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"

Quote from: "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?

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.

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  

pansexual heterophile.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"pansexual heterophile.

For example.  

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

Quote from: "Byronazriel"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.

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.

Quote from: "The Tiny Voice of Reason"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.

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

QuoteLanguage 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.

Someone already said that, and in what way is liberal offensive?

When I order a slice of pie, I don't say give me a conservative ammount of ice cream do I?

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Someone already said that, and in what way is liberal offensive?

Sophus did not claim that 'liberal' was offensive.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"When I order a slice of pie, I don't say give me a conservative ammount of ice cream do I?

I fail to see where this is going but please follow this line of argument.

Yes he did, he specifically added it to a list of words that have been "twist(ed) {words} so much that the words have to be abandoned and replaced to avoid offense."

The only people I've ever heard use the word liberal as a pejorative are conservatives, and radical ones at that.

I prefer to call them limp-wristed shirt lifting bottom touching toffee doctors. That is so much more appealing

Seriously though, it is as offensive as the word 'vagina', ie, not offensive in the slightest although i'd still never use that to describe a ladies' bits. Kind of cringeworthy really.. Like when you hear a grown man call his mum 'mummy'.. Makes me go a bit weird in the knee department.

The word gay is in the English dictionary as a word to describe happiness, homosexuality and as a derogatory remark.

Words evolve. Maybe homosexual is turning into a derogatory word as well.

Quote from: "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.

I thought that was also called solosexual. Or do you not masturbate either?

Disclaimer: I was not trying to pry, belittle, offend or any other negative connotation that may bring. I was merely curious. If it was too personal, please do not answer that question. I'll happily accept your wishes to stfu

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Someone already said that, and in what way is liberal offensive?

I have a developing theory about that. I believe that neocon Republicans and fundamentalist and/or right wing Christians have demonized this word to make liberals the enemy. Much like they have done with gay/lesbian/transgender people. This fear mongering distracts the general populace from the real issues at hand: despite having a Constitution, the United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation. The United States is involved in two wars that they have no business being in. The medical/pharmaceutical/hospital industry has been ripping people off for years and is getting richer and politically more powerful. The middle class is disapearing; the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting screwed. Oil continues to be the dominant energy source for industrialized nations, yet it isn't sustainable but yet there is nothing that can replace it. Etc.

So the right wingers give the sheep (general population) enemies to focus their hate. Because it is easier to demonize groups of people than it is to come up with solutions to complex problems.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "hunterman317"My purpose was not to offend, but to contribute. I know my views go against a lot of people's on the forum because of my upbringing. Sorry if I offended anyone.

This is a story of a couple, Brian and Norm who met in the 1950s and lived together for over fifty years.
Norm in recent years developed Alzheimer's and is now in a nursing home.
If you can listen to this and condemn their love as "a perversion of nature," your heart is cold and I pity you.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/ ... 3_1440.mp3 (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/03/tsy_20100313_1440.mp3)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2010/2839237.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2010/2839237.htm)

I like this comment

QuoteAnnie :
Brian, thankyou so much for sharing your heart with us. Love is love no matter who it's between. I could only wish to have memories like yours and to have experienced the kind of love you both have for each other. I'm very sorry for your loss but also happy that you both had so much love for each other. Hold your memories close to your heart and thankyou for sharing what has obviously been a difficult time for you. My admiration for you is more than I can say in words. Thankyou too RN for this beautiful and respectful story of true love. Should be mandatory listening to all school age children.

Thank you very much for that link. I got quite emotional whilst listening to it.

Wait, "homosexual" is offensive?

Jesus Christ, people need to grow thicker skins.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Jesus Christ, people need to grow thicker skins.

Beware though, a hide of my caliber restricts motion. Looks stylish though  

Homosexual is the equivalent to African-American. It started as a way to create a strictly clinical term for a way of being but it ended up sounding more like a diagnosis than a description. I refer to myself not as heterosexual, but straight. I'm pretty sure most straight people consider themselves straight. The opposite of straight isn't homosexual, it's gay.

One is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual.

Agree with the rest of your post, however

Quote from: "Will"One is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual.

One is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. regardless of being transsexual.

Which is another term that is quickly dropping out of favor among the people it is meant to describe, partly because of the often confusing distinctions between 'transsexual' and 'transgender'. The most preferred term at this point is simply 'trans'. In either case, you were correct in using it as an adjective, and not a noun.

This may be useful here: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcHP5xGhVLvmZGRnY3RocWdfMHc4ZHpza2c3&hl=en&pli=1

Again, why is homosexual and now apparently heterosexual offensive but asexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality are not?
...And since when was African-American offensive? Why is this the first I've heard about this stuff, is there some newsletter that I'm not subscribed to that y'all are?

Quote from: "karadan"I thought that was also called solosexual. Or do you not masturbate either?

Disclaimer: I was not trying to pry, belittle, offend or any other negative connotation that may bring. I was merely curious. If it was too personal, please do not answer that question. I'll happily accept your wishes to stfu

Masturbation does not equal "solo"-sexual, otherwise nearly everyone would be solosexual. Having sex, whether with yourself or otherwise has very little to do with sexuality. Sexuality has more to do with attraction.

If a person was sexually attracted to themselves, then they would be autosexual. I am not, so I am not.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Again, why is homosexual and now apparently heterosexual offensive but asexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality are not?
...And since when was African-American offensive? Why is this the first I've heard about this stuff, is there some newsletter that I'm not subscribed to that y'all are?

Since PC ran amok?

I can understand not wanting to hurt someone's feelings.  I can't understand inventing offense.  I've never been offended by being called heterosexual -- or homosexual, for that matter -- because the one is true and the other is false.

Is there a professional victim class?  You be the judge.

Quote from: "elliebean"Agree with the rest of your post, however

Quote from: "Will"One is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual.

One is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. regardless of being transsexual.

You're right.

I thought homosexual was the PC term too but was corrected by a gay friend.  I asked, so what should I say and he said LGBT or just gay.

Keeping up with what terms are PC is nearly impossible; I figure that as long as my intentions are pure that I can't be faulted for saying the wrong word.

Okay, the term faggot. I can see how that would be offensive, but homosexual? Not seeing it.

Is this just another one of those social things that I'll never understand, no matter how much I try, like small talk, compliments, and flirting?

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Is this just another one of those social things that I'll never understand, no matter how much I try, like small talk, compliments, and flirting?

Part of the social components incorporated within socialization my friend. Learning about sociology as I type this sentence .

Quote from: "Will"Homosexual is the equivalent to African-American. It started as a way to create a strictly clinical term for a way of being but it ended up sounding more like a diagnosis than a description. I refer to myself not as heterosexual, but straight. I'm pretty sure most straight people consider themselves straight. The opposite of straight isn't homosexual, it's gay.

One is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual.

I would say the term "homosexual" is more analogous to the more scientific terms for the various races than anything, since homosexual was originally used in a purely biological sense to describe any animal, including humans, that have sex exclusively within its own gender. In that vein, the word "gay" is more analogous to African American. Actually, none of the terms that describe homosexuality are very good analogies for African American, unless you use terms like Gay-American, or such.  

I also would argue that not only is the term homosexual not archaic, but the most accurate word to describe any animal that has sex within its own gender.

I also don't think it is remotely inherently offensive. A word becomes offensive when used in the context of offensive speech.

Frankly, I don't think too much about this subject, but I'm not on the leading edge of this topic either. I use gay, lesbian, straight, bi, pan, and asexual, as well as homosexual, depending on the context, but never as slurs. I can't imagine how any of them are slurs.

Scientific terms for race...  like Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid? I'm pretty sure that those terms are actually archiac.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Scientific terms for race...  like Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid? I'm pretty sure that those terms are actually archiac.

No, not what I am referring to, and those are not accepted as current terms. You are correct. I also was being too broad in my post and should have used the term ethnicity, rather than race. My error in my haste to post and dash off to other things.

I was simply trying to clarify what would be a more appropriate analogy, in my opinion. African American is a newer term, whereas homosexual has been around much longer. I was trying to equate it to older terms for ethnicity. Don't read into it anything that isn't there.

The whole point I wanted to make but apparently did not is that an accurate descriptor, such as homosexual, is not necessarily a slur.

Quote from: "McQ"A word becomes offensive when used in the context of offensive speech.

Exactly.

Quote...I'm not on the leading edge of this topic...

Thank you.

Quote from: "Will"Homosexual is the equivalent to African-American. It started as a way to create a strictly clinical term for a way of being but it ended up sounding more like a diagnosis than a description. I refer to myself not as heterosexual, but straight. I'm pretty sure most straight people consider themselves straight. The opposite of straight isn't homosexual, it's gay.

One is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual.

I dislike the word straight and I do not use it to describe my heterosexual friends.  The reason is, that it is the opposite of bent, a pejorative term for people who are homosexual.  Straight is also used to refer to one who does not do drugs so, in my opinion, using straight to describe a heterosexual person implies something not good about its opposite, something equivalent to excessive alcohol and drug use or some other abnormality.

But then again, I'm not "straight" or heterosexual.  For the record I'm bisexual (yes, we are real and not just confused lesbians or hetero girls looking to arouse boys) and I'm not offended by being called bisexual or bi.  I think it is a correct scientific term.

One of the funniest things I have heard was a conservative politician by the name of Duncan Gay.
He was explaining why gay was a totally inappropriate moniker for these homosexuals.
They're not gay they're... they're... they're... NOT GAY!
There was probably a record number of Duncan Gays at the Mardi Gras that year.

I have some sympathy for Byron's plight, I blame those who stretch every syllable to breaking, and imbue them with layers of derision.
I can't blame someone not wanting to be called a HOE MOE seckkksssuuuaal, (sorry I can't capture it in type).
Gay has the advantage of being chosen by gays, and it is shorter, less syllables to twist and load with hate.

I've typed it "homuhseckshuul" to capture that peculiar Alabama vibe.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I've typed it "homuhseckshuul" to capture that peculiar Alabama vibe.

Yes you do it better than me, can you do marry-jue-warna?

Yeah -- "wacky tobaccee."

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Is this just another one of those social things that I'll never understand, no matter how much I try, like small talk, compliments, and flirting?

It would seem so, but I wouldn't give up hope yet.


I didn't always understand those things either. I barely grasp some of them now.

Compliments, for example, make me uneasy, whether giving or receiving.



Unlike homosexuality.  

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I have some sympathy for Byron's plight, I blame those who stretch every syllable to breaking, and imbue them with layers of derision.
I can't blame someone not wanting to be called a HOE MOE seckkksssuuuaal, (sorry I can't capture it in type).
Gay has the advantage of being chosen by gays, and it is shorter, less syllables to twist and load with hate.

2nd that! Though I couldn't care less if I were called either or as long as the person saying it isn't saying it in a derogatory way. I just call myself gay, I've never given it much thought honestly. In fact when I'm around my friends I could care less that they use the word fag around me because I know they are not hate filled, but I wouldn't let them start thinking that I am a "token gay" either. I am Austin, not "gay friend", I don't use my sexuality to define me as a person........... well anyway, I am kind of off on a tangent.... sorry.

While it's true that the word itself is rather innocent, I can imagine why some people are offended by it. Blame things like all those headlines along the lines of like "Homosexuals threaten this or that part of America". It's been used like that so many times, even though I can think of two words that are a lot more offensive. It can be one word used to describe both lesbians, and gays in one word. Which can sometimes simplify things. It personally doesn't offend me, but after seeing so much anti-gay/anti-lesbian propaganda using the term "homosexual" so many times I can understand why a lot of people dislike that word.

QuoteI've typed it "homuhseckshuul" to capture that peculiar Alabama vibe.

My father told me about people who pronounce it like that, though I haven't heard it spoken yet by someone with a genuine accent.

QuoteI thought that was also called solosexual.

The technical term is autosexual I believe.

Could also be that the religious fuck-wads have been, for the past few years, been using "Homosexual" instead of "Gay" to dehumanize us to their congregations.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Could also be that the religious fuck-wads have been, for the past few years, been using "Homosexual" instead of "Gay" to dehumanize us to their congregations.

Us religious f-wads would like to know.  Is it now best to use "gay" instead of "homosexual"?  And if so, where is this written as the official description from the community as a whole?

If this is so, I have no issue in using the term the community wants used.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Could also be that the religious fuck-wads have been, for the past few years, been using "Homosexual" instead of "Gay" to dehumanize us to their congregations.

Us religious f-wads would like to know.  Is it now best to use "gay" instead of "homosexual"?

Yes.

QuoteAnd if so, where is this written as the official description from the community as a whole?

...That's what you need before you start using the term "gay" instead of "homosexual"?

QuoteIf this is so, I have no issue in using the term the community wants used.

Then you should start using it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...That's what you need before you start using the term "gay" instead of "homosexual"?

No, not necessarily.  Names just seem to change so often.  I was hoping to have a decree of sorts.  Is there a main voice for the gay community?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...That's what you need before you start using the term "gay" instead of "homosexual"?

No, not necessarily.  Names just seem to change so often.  I was hoping to have a decree of sorts.  Is there a main voice for the gay community?

I didn't know either; a gay friend of mine corrected me when I said homosexual.  I thought I was being pc by saying homosexual (we were discussing equality within an organization) because in normal conversations I just say gay as that has always gone over well with gay friends.  I was told that lgbt is also acceptable; though that takes longer to say.

I guess a main lgbt voice would be the Victory Fund?  I dunno; I just try to use whatever word makes people happy.  We use to be told it was pc to call black people african american and now saying black is ok again because not all black people are of African origins.  The terms used for mentally retarded people have changed over they years; I can't even keep up with whatever is pc today...I think it might be Mentally Handicap.

Basically if there is a group of people who is commonly disliked or mistreated by another group of people then there is a good chance whatever is appropriate to call that group of people is going to change over the years in an attempt to somehow overcome the bigotry.  Even with atheists there was the brights movement (though imo it was a bad idea from the start since choosing a word that makes us sound stuck up is not exactly the solution to combating those that dislike atheists)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...That's what you need before you start using the term "gay" instead of "homosexual"?

No, not necessarily.  Names just seem to change so often.  I was hoping to have a decree of sorts.  Is there a main voice for the gay community?

I didn't know either; a gay friend of mine corrected me when I said homosexual.  I thought I was being pc by saying homosexual (we were discussing equality within an organization) because in normal conversations I just say gay as that has always gone over well with gay friends.  I was told that lgbt is also acceptable; though that takes longer to say.

I guess a main lgbt voice would be the Victory Fund?  I dunno; I just try to use whatever word makes people happy.  We use to be told it was pc to call black people african american and now saying black is ok again because not all black people are of African origins.  The terms used for mentally retarded people have changed over they years; I can't even keep up with whatever is pc today...I think it might be Mentally Handicap.

Basically if there is a group of people who is commonly disliked or mistreated by another group of people then there is a good chance whatever is appropriate to call that group of people is going to change over the years in an attempt to somehow overcome the bigotry.  Even with atheists there was the brights movement (though imo it was a bad idea from the start since choosing a word that makes us sound stuck up is not exactly the solution to combating those that dislike atheists)

EXACTLY!  I was going to mention the Black, African American thing.  I was recently in South Africa for 3 weeks+ and found that there, they go by 3 distinctions.  Black, Coloured, and White.  Black being the dark-skinned "Blacks" and Coloured being the lighter-skinned "Black" including other ethnicities that are not White.  So to me, for instance being from So. Cal., most of the Black and Coloured people to me here are simply referred to as Black or African American.  It was confusing to say the least, but I was corrected on a few occasions by both Black and Coloured there in Joburg.

btw, I think, last I knew, the term, Mentally Handicapped evolved to Mentally Challenged.  Even this may be out of date.

Either way, it's good to know the correct term of the day.  I really don't want to offend anyone.

It isn't about PC, or what's fashionable, or even whether someone will be offended by it (there will always be some who are offended; you can't please everyone); it's about how those words are used to pigeonhole and oppress people. That's why I think the words change so often;; it's not that the people they refer to get bored with them, or just want to make it harder on everyone else, it's because the bigots who get involved in the institution and legislation of their bigotry keep finding new ways to use those words to oppress others.

And "homosexuality"... it's so impersonal, it sounds almost clinical. In fact, iirc, it was originally coined to refer to gayness as a mental disorder.

Quote from: "elliebean"It isn't about PC, or what's fashionable, or even whether someone will be offended by it (there will always be some who are offended; you can't please everyone); it's about how those words are used to pigeonhole and oppress people. That's why I think the words change so often;; it's not that the people they refer to get bored with them, or just want to make it harder on everyone else, it's because the bigots who get involved in the institution and legislation of their bigotry keep finding new ways to use those words to oppress others.

And "homosexuality"... it's so impersonal, it sounds almost clinical. In fact, iirc, it was originally coined to refer to gayness as a mental disorder.

Yeah. I'm not gay, but you kind of have to cringe when anti-gay Christians use the word "homosexual".

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah. I'm not gay, but you kind of have to cringe when anti-gay Christians use the word "homosexual".

Bing Bing Bing Bing! We have a winner! What did he win Johnny?

Quote from: "GAYtheist"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah. I'm not gay, but you kind of have to cringe when anti-gay Christians use the word "homosexual".

Bing Bing Bing Bing! We have a winner! What did he win Johnny?

So what you're saying here is that "we" can use the word...but "you" can't.
In other words it's much like;

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich-revised"Yeah. I'm not [strike:kur32kmm]gay[/strike:kur32kmm]Black, but you kind of have to cringe when [strike:kur32kmm]anti-gay Christians[/strike:kur32kmm] non-Blacks use the "N" word [strike:kur32kmm]"homosexual"[/strike:kur32kmm].

??

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah. I'm not gay, but you kind of have to cringe when anti-gay Christians use the word "homosexual".

Bing Bing Bing Bing! We have a winner! What did he win Johnny?

So what you're saying here is that "we" can use the word...but "you" can't.
In other words it's much like;

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich-revised"Yeah. I'm not [strike:1hce85l8]gay[/strike:1hce85l8]Black, but you kind of have to cringe when [strike:1hce85l8]anti-gay Christians[/strike:1hce85l8] non-Blacks use the "N" word [strike:1hce85l8]"homosexual"[/strike:1hce85l8].

??

No. It's the way they say it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"No. It's the way they say it.

You can't say the "er".  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah. I'm not gay, but you kind of have to cringe when anti-gay Christians use the word "homosexual".

Bing Bing Bing Bing! We have a winner! What did he win Johnny?

So what you're saying here is that "we" can use the word...but "you" can't.

No. That's not anything like what he said.

It seems like "homosexual" is equivalent to "Darwinist" or "evolutionist" in some ways.  

I honestly thought that homosexual and heterosexual came from the same scientific labeling convention which brought us homogeneous and heterogeneous. I have trouble adjusting to using a slang word for all occasions both formal and informal.  

I still can't bring myself to use the equivalent word for heterosexual which is "straight."

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah. I'm not gay, but you kind of have to cringe when anti-gay Christians use the word "homosexual".

Bing Bing Bing Bing! We have a winner! What did he win Johnny?

So what you're saying here is that "we" can use the word...but "you" can't.
In other words it's much like;

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich-revised"Yeah. I'm not [strike:28394om2]gay[/strike:28394om2]Black, but you kind of have to cringe when [strike:28394om2]anti-gay Christians[/strike:28394om2] non-Blacks use the "N" word [strike:28394om2]"homosexual"[/strike:28394om2].

??

I don't know anyone who is gay, including myself, that uses "homosexual" in everyday talk about ourselves...am I the only one that's never heard it?

Quote from: "GAYtheist"I don't know anyone who is gay, including myself, that uses "homosexual" in everyday talk about ourselves...am I the only one that's never heard it?

In common dialogue, face to face, I can see using homosexual as too "proper" or even improper, however my amazement is in its written form, in speaking of the gay, gay is preferred.  We learn something new daily.

Homosexual Community < Gay Community
Homosexual Man/Woman < Gay Man/Woman
Homosexual sex < Gay sex

Got it.  From hence forth...  

However, in describing from a biblical perspective in debate/discussing whether "God hates gays" vs "God loves gays", I think "homosexual acts" is the best form to use as the difference in interpretation.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"I don't know anyone who is gay, including myself, that uses "homosexual" in everyday talk about ourselves...am I the only one that's never heard it?

In common dialogue, face to face, I can see using homosexual as too "proper" or even improper, however my amazement is in its written form, in speaking of the gay, gay is preferred.  We learn something new daily.

Homosexual Community < Gay Community
Homosexual Man/Woman < Gay Man/Woman
Homosexual sex < Gay sex

Got it.  From hence forth...  :P

Quote from: "elliebean"I mean, you wouldn't say "gay acts", that would just sound like... some kind of "effeminate male" stereotyped behaviour. And that would be offensive. :)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"I don't know anyone who is gay, including myself, that uses "homosexual" in everyday talk about ourselves...am I the only one that's never heard it?

In common dialogue, face to face, I can see using homosexual as too "proper" or even improper, however my amazement is in its written form, in speaking of the gay, gay is preferred.  We learn something new daily.

Homosexual Community < Gay Community
Homosexual Man/Woman < Gay Man/Woman
Homosexual sex < Gay sex

Got it.  From hence forth...  

However, in describing from a biblical perspective in debate/discussing whether "God hates gays" vs "God loves gays", I think "homosexual acts" is the best form to use as the difference in interpretation.

Ok, Sadly, school, by and large has kept me busy and off the site, but I have to comment on this again. What you just said more or less proves my point. Many Christians, not all, but I see alot in my day to day wandering, see gay people as...lesser people. The word "homosexual" as you put it, is offensive for the exact reason that you just used it in. The term "Homo" is widely used in a mean spirited way, case in point being Fred Phelps, religious fuckwad extraordinare. The term "homosexual act"...OK, just say gay people fucking or something, because, frankly, I find it less annoying. I stated before that many religious people use the term homosexual to dehumanize us, and I mean it as exactly that. By calling me a homosexual, yes, you may be calling the kettle black, but you aren't seeing the intricate designs on the kettle that make it unique. You are in essence saying that all black kettle are just black kettles. By saying that someone is gay you are saying that one aspect of that persons like is that they love/fuck/make love to someone of the same gender. To me there is a rather large difference. One is clinical, the other is not.

On the other hand, in more formal laguage, like in a biology textbook or in a research paper or something, where a "clinical" term is called for, homosexual would probably be most appropriate (which is, I think the problem Byron is having), as long as it's used as an adjective, not a noun.

Ok in certain contexts:
a homosexual male
a homosexual female
has homosexual fantasies
has homosexual sex

Not as ok:
a homosexual
the homosexuals
deviants
perverts

 :sigh:

Quote from: "elliebean"Ok in certain contexts:
a homosexual male
a homosexual female
has homosexual fantasies
has homosexual sex

Not as ok:
a homosexual
the homosexuals
deviants
perverts

Still, if someone supports a "red" political party, you can call that person "a red". Not politically correct textbook language, but that's not the language we use to speak anyways, now is it..?

I, for one, wouldn't mind in the slightest being refered to as "a bi" or any other adjective that applies. I can imagine the last part quite efficiently myself. For instance, "a bi" in my case would mean "a bi(sexual male)"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Still, if someone supports a "red" political party, you can call that person "a red". Not politically correct textbook language, but that's not the language we use to speak anyways, now is it..?

Political identity is not the same as sexual or gender identity, though, is it? The problem is having your personhood  reduced to a mere descriptor of only one aspect of yourself, and especially, in many cases, an apsect that is being maligned (along with the individual) in the contexts in which the words are most often used.

QuoteFor instance, "a bi" in my case would mean "a bi(sexual male human being)"

Fixed that for you.  

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Ok, Sadly, school, by and large has kept me busy and off the site, but I have to comment on this again. What you just said more or less proves my point. Many Christians, not all, but I see alot in my day to day wandering, see gay people as...lesser people. The word "homosexual" as you put it, is offensive for the exact reason that you just used it in. The term "Homo" is widely used in a mean spirited way, case in point being Fred Phelps, religious fuckwad extraordinare. The term "homosexual act"...OK, just say gay people fucking or something, because, frankly, I find it less annoying. I stated before that many religious people use the term homosexual to dehumanize us, and I mean it as exactly that. By calling me a homosexual, yes, you may be calling the kettle black, but you aren't seeing the intricate designs on the kettle that make it unique. You are in essence saying that all black kettle are just black kettles. By saying that someone is gay you are saying that one aspect of that persons like is that they love/fuck/make love to someone of the same gender. To me there is a rather large difference. One is clinical, the other is not.

So basically what you are telling me is that if anyone uses the word homosexual, it is in the mean-spirited sense everytime and thus the gay community wants that word stricken from the English language unless it is written in a text book?  What if a term was started that was, Same-sex Fucker?  Are you telling me you prefer anything BUT homosexual?  Btw, more people use the term "gay" as a dehumanizing term than they do "homosexual".  Have you spent any time with high school kids?  And not only them.

Now when I say I reserve the right to use it in biblical context, it is because Christian fanatics like the WBC, take God's hate of something to the extreme.  That "God hates fags".  Not at all correct.  What God hates are the homosexual acts...exactly like He "hates sinners"...not at all, He loves sinners, what He hates is the sin acts we do, which include homosexual acts but that those specific acts are normally committed by homosexuals.  God doesn't hate gays.  He hates gay acts as he does sinful acts.  Not the ones that commit them.

Btw, is the term "fag" more acceptable than homosexual?  Just wondering.

Quote from: "elliebean"Political identity is not the same as sexual or gender identity, though, is it? The problem is having your personhood  reduced to a mere descriptor of only one aspect of yourself, and especially, in many cases, an apsect that is being maligned (along with the individual) in the contexts in which the words are most often used.

Yes, there is a point there. However, it may be just me, but I don't see the "reduction" of one's personhood to just a descriptor. I see a descriptor for one particular trait of one particular being or object or groups thereof. It may be, in context, that that particular trait is most relevant in an ongoing discussion or just the most interesting trait at the time.

Quote

QuoteFor instance, "a bi" in my case would mean "a bi(sexual male human being)"

Fixed that for you.  :rant: Whoareyoucallin'... ... ...

 Oh wait... I am.  :P

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Btw, is the term "fag" more acceptable than homosexual?  Just wondering.

You can't be serious.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So basically what you are telling me is that if anyone uses the word homosexual, it is in the mean-spirited sense everytime and thus the gay community wants that word stricken from the English language unless it is written in a text book?  What if a term was started that was, Same-sex Fucker?  Are you telling me you prefer anything BUT homosexual?  Btw, more people use the term "gay" as a dehumanizing term than they do "homosexual".  Have you spent any time with high school kids?  And not only them.

Now when I say I reserve the right to use it in biblical context, it is because Christian fanatics like the WBC, take God's hate of something to the extreme.  That "God hates fags".  Not at all correct.  What God hates are the homosexual acts...exactly like He "hates sinners"...not at all, He loves sinners, what He hates is the sin acts we do, which include homosexual acts but that those specific acts are normally committed by homosexuals.  God doesn't hate gays.  He hates gay acts as he does sinful acts.  Not the ones that commit them.

Btw, is the term "fag" more acceptable than homosexual?  Just wondering.

Can you understand the words that are coming out of m mouth? Ok, one. I have stated a few times that it is usually the religious that use it to define us as a lesser being. Not all, but more than a few. Two, I agree with what you said of Fred. Three...I have had to fight so many times, physically and otherwise, because of peoples ignorance, in high school and out. Do not speak of what you do not know.

Four...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Btw, is the term "fag" more acceptable than homosexual?  Just wondering.

Won't even touch it.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Btw, is the term "fag" more acceptable than homosexual?  Just wondering.

You can't be serious.  :raised:

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Btw, is the term "fag" more acceptable than homosexual?  Just wondering.

You can't be serious.  

Quite.  I've heard it kicked around by my gay friends a few times.

Either way, I understand why homosexual is offensive and will curtail my use of the term, but I disagree with making it an unacceptable term just because, "I don't like the way they said that...".  I don't like the way many people say many things.  It doesn't make the WORDS offensive, but rather their self-righteous use and context.  The word simply means same-sex.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"[Either way, I understand why homosexual is offensive and will curtail my use of the term, but I disagree with making it an unacceptable term just because, "I don't like the way they said that...".  I don't like the way many people say many things.  It doesn't make the WORDS offensive, but rather their self-righteous use and context.  The word simply means same-sex.

It's hard to make gay sound bad, being short helps, but I think there's an onomatopoeic thing going on.

There must some people with a same sex orientation who associate gayness with a frivolous lifestyle.  I don't expect if would be a significant number, I can't recall hearing the feeling expressed.  I think to some degree the gay term was adopted as a rejection of the dark and dirty image straights cast on them.  Does a very serious person just accept the gay term for themselves and reject the old bright and sunny connotations?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Btw, is the term "fag" more acceptable than homosexual?  Just wondering.

You can't be serious.  

Quite.  I've heard it kicked around by my gay friends a few times.

Either way, I understand why homosexual is offensive and will curtail my use of the term, but I disagree with making it an unacceptable term just because, "I don't like the way they said that...".  I don't like the way many people say many things.  It doesn't make the WORDS offensive, but rather their self-righteous use and context.  The word simply means same-sex.

Do you know the history of the word "fag" as it is used today? More than likely, the reason you hear gay people throw it around is the same reason you hear black people throw around the N-word. Doesn't make it good, or bad, but we understand it. And again, you are completely missing the point about the word "homosexual". Yes, it simply means "same-sex", we know that. Mind you there is a huge "but" at the end of that sentence. Most of the people I have ever heard using it, use it to clinicalize gay people. I.E. "The homosexual-agenda" "Homosexuals" or what have you. It's very clinical, and hurtful.

For the record, the word fag has a very dark history for gay people.

During my studies, and sadly I cannot find my sources for this anymore, so you can choose whether or not to believe this, when the religious fuck-wads of the day wanted to bun a "witch" they would also find as many gay people as hey could find, or accuse, tie them around the stake that the witch was to be burned on, douse them with flammable liquid, and put the torch to them. Make the "faggots". Kindling. People may say that fag is a ciggarette, but think about it. A ciggarette is still a stick that people but a flame to isn't it?

I am, clinically, a homosexual male. Yes, that it true. I love my boyfriend, and hope to call him husband one day, but we do not ever call our relationship homosexual, we do not call ourselves homosexual, we are GAY. Deal with it.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"...we are GAY. Deal with it.

Whoa!  I'm simply trying to figure it out.  I hold on offense to your lifestyle...

Alright, I've come to the conclusion that I shall just try to avoid the whole situation entirely. I figure that I can reasonably work my way around it, even if it comes up... for whatever reason.

I honestly don't care what sexuality people are, that's their business. I can't think of any reason why I would want to know such a thing, or what difference it could possibly make.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"...we are GAY. Deal with it.

Whoa!  I'm simply trying to figure it out.  I hold on offense to your lifestyle...

Seems to me, through some of the posts you have on here, that you are more trying to excuse people using the term in a clinical way. Not to mention, the question as to whether fag is as acceptable as gay was stunningly offensive, and I answered your question. And I hold on to that quote of mine, not just to you, but to all homophobic fucks, be they Christian, Muslim, Atheist or what...I am gay, deal with it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"...lifestyle...

Oh lordy.  

Quote from: "GAYtheist"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"...we are GAY. Deal with it.

Whoa!  I'm simply trying to figure it out.  I hold on offense to your lifestyle...

Seems to me, through some of the posts you have on here, that you are more trying to excuse people using the term in a clinical way. Not to mention, the question as to whether fag is as acceptable as gay was stunningly offensive, and I answered your question. And I hold on to that quote of mine, not just to you, but to all homophobic fucks, be they Christian, Muslim, Atheist or what...I am gay, deal with it.

Someone lives with a chip on their shoulder.  So be it.  I apologize for offending you in wanting to figure out why a word is so offensive when I thought it was PC.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"...lifestyle...

Oh lordy.  :brick:

GAYtheist, I hold no offense to you being gay.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Ok, really...now "lifestyle" is offensive?  Is it not...a lifestyle?  Oh wait, it's my tone.   :drool  

I didn't even know the word homosexual was offensive till a friend pointed it out to me and I'm surrounded by pro gay rights liberals all the time.  I think it's important to keep in mind that not everyone is going to know how not to offend a minority group when asking questions; especially if they are from a social group (like a conservative church) that is likely to use words that those who have many lgbt friends would know are improper to use.  If I could not know something, I can only imagine how many things someone from a more conservative culture wouldn't know even if they are making an effort to be understanding and asking questions so they can learn.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"It is not your tone, it's more that the word lifestyle intones a choice. Being gay is not a lifestyle, it is how we are born. And I don't live with a chip on my shoulder, I am simply tired of people.

I never insinuated you weren't born that way.  In fact, you don't know what my stance is on gay people.  The only thing you assume and so judge me on is my ignorant use of terms that I clearly had no idea were offensive, yet you find it quite easy to start with the name-calling and claim, "I'm simply tired of people".  Well gay people are people so I gather you're tired of gays too or what do you really mean when you say "people"?

Quote from: "GAYtheist"...Wait...no offense to me being gay...How does my being gay offend anyone to begin with? It's a part of life... :brick:

I don't know, you tell me.  You're the one flinging the F bomb around willy-nilly at someone attempting to get educated on a point that I'm clearly ignorant to and interested in finding the correct terms to use without offending.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"It is not your tone, it's more that the word lifestyle intones a choice. Being gay is not a lifestyle, it is how we are born. And I don't live with a chip on my shoulder, I am simply tired of people.

I never insinuated you weren't born that way.  In fact, you don't know what my stance is on gay people.  The only thing you assume and so judge me on is my ignorant use of terms that I clearly had no idea were offensive, yet you find it quite easy to start with the name-calling and claim, "I'm simply tired of people".  Well gay people are people so I gather you're tired of gays too or what do you really mean when you say "people"?

Quote from: "GAYtheist"...Wait...no offense to me being gay...How does my being gay offend anyone to begin with? It's a part of life... :brick:

I don't know, you tell me.  You're the one flinging the F bomb around willy-nilly at someone attempting to get educated on a point that I'm clearly ignorant to and interested in finding the correct terms to use without offending.

Actually, by using the term lifestyle, you are essentially saying that it is a choice. I never called you any sort of name, I called religious fuck-wads religious fuck-wads...If you took it as a slam on you, that really isn't my problem. When I say people, I mean religious fuck-wads and people that seem to think that gay people aren't really people. And as far as throwing the F-bomb around willy nilly...Don't care...I swear, live with it.

Some clarification of my stance:

1. The word "homosexual" is not inherently, nor even usually offensive, IMO; I only said it is suboptimal and makes you look out of touch, to the point where it raises questions about your level of tolerance/acceptance. It's the kind of thing, if you said it to a room full of LGBT folks, you probably wouldn't be called out on it, but from that point on they might be looking for the next thing you say to be really prejudiced.

2. Words like "fag, "faggot", "tranny", etc. ARE VERY offensive (in the same category as the N bomb), but some gay people use them towards each other with a deliberately derisive tone, and with irony. If you hear them in that context, consider it an inside joke. If you're not in on it, best to just leave it.

3. Some words, like "queer", "dyke", etc. can be used pejoratively, but are also how some people self-identify. Depends on the context.

4. Being gay or trans is as much a lifestyle as being left-handed or right-handed, or being a man or a woman, or being straight, or having naturally curly hair is a lifestyle. That is, you can make a lifestyle out of it if you want to, but if you don't, that doesn't change it.

5. @ AD: My headshake was meant to be half-cheeky; it was my way of saying, "whoa, this is going to take way longer than I originally thought". I'm not offended or upset by anything that's been said so far. The best way to get educated on something is to ask questions, so you're doing right. Keep it up.  :)  I understand being tired of people, but personally, I'm more tired of the ones who don't ask questions and don't care if their words are offensive or contribute further to our oppression. The LGBTQI community needs more straight allies, especially in christendom, and the way to win them over is not to come off like angry militants. I get angry too, but I find more and more that it never helps to show it.

Quote from: "elliebean"Some clarification of my stance:

1. The word "homosexual" is not inherently, nor even usually offensive, IMO; I only said it is suboptimal and makes you look out of touch, to the point where it raises questions about your level of tolerance/acceptance. It's the kind of thing, if you said it to a room full of LGBT folks, you probably wouldn't be called out on it, but from that point on they might be looking for the next thing you say to be really prejudiced.

2. Words like "fag, "faggot", "tranny", etc. ARE VERY offensive (in the same category as the N bomb), but some gay people use them towards each other with a deliberately derisive tone, and with irony. If you hear them in that context, consider it an inside joke. If you're not in on it, best to just leave it.

3. Some words, like "queer", "dyke", etc. can be used pejoratively, but are also how some people self-identify. Depends on the context.

4. Being gay or trans is as much a lifestyle as being left-handed or right-handed, or being a man or a woman, or being straight, or having naturally curly hair is a lifestyle. That is, you can make a lifestyle out of it if you want to, but if you don't, that doesn't change it.

5. @ AD: My headshake was meant to be half-cheeky; it was my way of saying, "whoa, this is going to take way longer than I originally thought". I'm not offended or upset by anything that's been said so far. The best way to get educated on something is to ask questions, so you're doing right. Keep it up.  :)  I understand being tired of people, but personally, I'm more tired of the ones who don't ask questions and don't care if their words are offensive or contribute further to our oppression. The LGBTQI community needs more straight allies, especially in christendom, and the way to win them over is not to come off like angry militants. I get angry too, but I find more and more that it never helps to show it.

Fair enough. I get a bit ranty sometimes, and, in my defense, sometimes it can be hard to decipher the...tone of voice I guess you'd call it, on a forum. And you're right about the people I'm generally tired of, and the one's you mentioned are the ones I call religious fuck-wads...and I still hold to that. Numbers one through four are basically what I've been trying to say, you just said much more eloquently that I did. Thanks.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Actually, by using the term lifestyle, you are essentially saying that it is a choice. I never called you any sort of name, I called religious fuck-wads religious fuck-wads...If you took it as a slam on you, that really isn't my problem. When I say people, I mean religious fuck-wads and people that seem to think that gay people aren't really people. And as far as throwing the F-bomb around willy nilly...Don't care...I swear, live with it.

I hope this doesn't offend you, but I'm going to say it simply to state my stance.  If I use terms which offend you or are known to offend the gay community (I can't even be sure if that is offensive now), I apologize in advance and hope you understand that this is coming from a person with a good handful of gay friends, yet ignorant to much.  I have never really opened up and said or asked these questions of them.  I've just steered clear of known offenses. In the least, this has given me good reason to confront these topics with them.

That being said; I really have no understanding how the words homosexual and lifestyle can be offensive.  They do not come to us as the other obviously offensive terms such as 'fag' or the like.  Just because some ignorant individuals that hold the same belief in the "God" that I do interpret things dealing with gay people, (see I even feel odd saying it that way) IMHO, totally wrong.  You seemed to lump me and they into the F-wad category when you said;

Quote from: "GAYtheist"...not just to you, but to all homophobic fucks...

Now I accept your clarification that you didn't mean me specifically, but that was my perception and I threw me back for a moment as I thought I was clearly trying to educate myself.  Here endeth this.  :)

6.  True.  I'm not intentionally being thick.  I may very well have been offending my gay friends all the while thinking I was being PC or "tolerant".  I will have to go and ask now.  I hope asking wont offend them if I don't ask properly.

elliebean and GAYtheist, re: Allies in christendom:  Whether the majority of "Christianity" takes the gay community in or not is of no real consequence.  I don't mean to preach, so suffice to say, Christ's "allies" turned against Him.  It only takes a hand reaching out to see His hand has always been there for the taking.  It makes no difference if I am gay or not gay.  His hand is there to take hold of and HE will do the holding as long as we keep reaching.  If there is "...no male nor female, for you are all one..." then I interpret that to include, "no gay nor straight".  (plz forgive the poor wording).

It is good to see people going a bit lighter on AD, constantly apologising must grate after a while.

I don't think Trani is offensive here, but we abbreviate and add an i sound to just about anything.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 29, 2011, 02:12:58 AM
It is good to see people going a bit lighter on AD, constantly apologising must grate after a while.

I don't think Trani is offensive here, but we abbreviate and add an i sound to just about anything.

Be assured Puddling, whether you spell it "tranni" or "tranny" it is offensive.  Best just to say "trans" but "transgender" is also acceptable.