Stop using the word "homosexual"

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:04 pm

If you control the vocabulary, terminology and definitions used in a debate, you control the outcome. Of course the gay lobby prefers the term "gay"; it was chosen for its propaganda value. Of course they hate the term "homosexual". It is the unbiased, technically-correct description of what homosexuality is: a pattern of behavior. (Note here to Woodruff: It's interesting that you say that in your experience the rank-and-file of people actually don't care; I guess the leadership and chief apologists are out of step with their own people, or they have a different agenda.)

Let's deal with this "We now know", as the author, as well as many others say, that "gay-ness" or homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable part of who a person is. We do not "know" any such thing.

This is a case of "the big lie". You say something that is not true, and you repeat it enough, with enough boldness, and people believe it. The lie is that homosexuality is a "kind of people" like racial or ethnic groups, and therefore arguments concerning racial or ethnic discrimination are applicable. We are brainwashed by the media into believing so, but it is definitely not proven.

Here come all the insults that I am ignorant and bigoted. Show me the logical and scientific proof of which I am ignorant; I challenge you.

In the meantime, here is a link to an article. Yes, the article is from a "biased" source, that is, one that has, and attempts to support a particular opinion. So was the article in the op. But it references studies and surveys from various sources, even biased pro-gay sources. Are you open-minded enough to read it?

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:04 pm

Dang, Saxi is even more down with homosexual jargon than I am!

I am still more down than Inky tho

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:05 pm

Woodruff wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I'm not asking you to stop using it with your friends, Woodruff and AoG. I'm asking for you to be aware of the fact that it is in fact offensive, since it implies that being gay is a choice. So don't use it with strangers, acquaintances, or on the Internet.

But that's exactly WHY I use the term "homosexual" instead of "gay". In my entire lifetime, I've not known anyone that didn't prefer the term "homosexual". I've known people who don't mind the term "gay" either (they basically didn't care what you called them as long as they knew you weren't trying to be an ass), but nobody that actually prefers that term, including one of my cadets last year. I'm not trying to challenge the article really, but that's why I find this very confusing and backward.

Well maybe in your part of the country, things are different. But that's the way the mainstream is. Just look at any article in the mainstream news (and I'm not talking about Fox News) on the subject; they never use the word "homosexual". We don't say "homosexual rights", we say "gay rights". That isn't a coincidence.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:07 pm

daddy1gringo wrote:If you control the vocabulary, terminology and definitions used in a debate, you control the outcome. Of course the gay lobby prefers the term "gay"; it was chosen for its propaganda value.

Shouldn't they choose a word for it's propoganda value? I mean, seriously...if you're trying to become accepted, isn't propoganda a part of that?

daddy1gringo wrote:(Note here to Woodruff: It's interesting that you say that in your experience the rank-and-file of people actually don't care; I guess the leadership and chief apologists are out of step with their own people, or they have a different agenda.)

In fairness, the number of homosexuals I've known in my life is less than 20...that's an incredibly small sample size. Of course, it's pretty wide-ranging in that I've lived all over the United States, so different areas were accounted for, as well as several who were in the military from different backgrounds.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:10 pm

InkL0sed wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I'm not asking you to stop using it with your friends, Woodruff and AoG. I'm asking for you to be aware of the fact that it is in fact offensive, since it implies that being gay is a choice. So don't use it with strangers, acquaintances, or on the Internet.

But that's exactly WHY I use the term "homosexual" instead of "gay". In my entire lifetime, I've not known anyone that didn't prefer the term "homosexual". I've known people who don't mind the term "gay" either (they basically didn't care what you called them as long as they knew you weren't trying to be an ass), but nobody that actually prefers that term, including one of my cadets last year. I'm not trying to challenge the article really, but that's why I find this very confusing and backward.

Well maybe in your part of the country, things are different.

I've lived all over the United States. Well, everywhere except for the northeast. And I've known several homosexuals in the military, who came from different backgrounds.

Hannibał · Post by **Hannibał** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:13 pm

Haha Ben affleck fits so well in a topic about LGBTQI

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:15 pm

daddy1gringo wrote:If you control the vocabulary, terminology and definitions used in a debate, you control the outcome. Of course the gay lobby prefers the term "gay"; it was chosen for its propaganda value. Of course they hate the term "homosexual". It is the unbiased, technically-correct description of what homosexuality is: a pattern of behavior. (Note here to Woodruff: It's interesting that you say that in your experience the rank-and-file of people actually don't care; I guess the leadership and chief apologists are out of step with their own people, or they have a different agenda.)

Let's deal with this "We now know", as the author, as well as many others say, that "gay-ness" or homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable part of who a person is. We do not "know" any such thing.

This is a case of "the big lie". You say something that is not true, and you repeat it enough, with enough boldness, and people believe it. The lie is that homosexuality is a "kind of people" like racial or ethnic groups, and therefore arguments concerning racial or ethnic discrimination are applicable. We are brainwashed by the media into believing so, but it is definitely not proven.

Here come all the insults that I am ignorant and bigoted. Show me the logical and scientific proof of which I am ignorant; I challenge you.

In the meantime, here is a link to an article. Yes, the article is from a "biased" source, that is, one that has, and attempts to support a particular opinion. So was the article in the op. But it references studies and surveys from various sources, even biased pro-gay sources. Are you open-minded enough to read it?

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

Honestly, no. I'm not open-minded enough to read things trying to prove that the earth is flat, or about how dinosaurs are just a theory, or that money grows on trees, etc - unless for entertainment value. Maybe I'll do it for that purpose later.

In any case, this thread wasn't designed for people like you. If you think people can choose their sexuality, there will be no convincing you, and you may as well continue using the term to expose yourself. I'm not going to debate the matter.

saxitoxin · Post by **saxitoxin** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:21 pm

InkL0sed wrote:I'm not going to debate the matter.

Just in case you're not familiar with all the functions available here in The Club, there are options that may be better-suited for one-way communication.

Hope this helps,
STX!
LGBTQILMNOP Terminology Ombudsman

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Just in case you weren't aware, derailing threads is against the rules. Both you and daddygringo have been off-topic. I'd report you, but you seem to be so aware of the rules, I'm sure you know what you're doing. I expect a self-ban promptly.

Pirlo · Post by **Pirlo** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:30 pm

I always thought it's polite to use the technical term of something rather than the slang thing till I got banned from chat for saying "homo" meaning to be polite!

saxitoxin · Post by **saxitoxin** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:32 pm

Since we're getting stuff out in the open, I would like to say - both as a (formerly) practicing mental health professional and as a member of society with more than an 8th grade education - I was offended by this:

InkL0sed wrote:You, sir, are a fucking retard.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=53078&p=1386453&hilit=retard#p1386453

Use of the "R" word is not acceptable in non-caveman societies. I hope one day those of us who have chosen to opt-out of modern civilization make the choice to rejoin the majority working toward a more progressive, egalitarian and intellectually-oriented society. Here are some resources one can use to self-enlighten and become just a bit less of a luddite / hatemonger: http://www.r-word.org.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:44 pm

Pirlo wrote:I always thought it's polite to use the technical term of something rather than the slang thing till I got banned from chat for saying "homo" meaning to be polite!

It's a pseudo-technical term - it was one used by scientists of the past who didn't know what they were talking about, people like daddygringo here, who still think sexual orientation is a choice, and people like you, who are trying to be polite.

Saxi, you weren't even around in 2008. You never had the pleasure to meet Napoleon (come to think of it, I really wish he were around now. It would be fun to watch a young kid like him completely humiliate you in a debate). That said, you know what – I agree. "Retarded" is an offensive word, and it denigrates the mentally disabled. I was wrong to use it. I won't throw it around willy-nilly anymore, though somehow I don't think that's been the case for three years now.

Now stop derailing the thread. Like I said, I'm expecting a self-ban right about now.

saxitoxin · Post by **saxitoxin** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:47 pm

InkL0sed wrote:
Pirlo wrote:I always thought it's polite to use the technical term of something rather than the slang thing till I got banned from chat for saying "homo" meaning to be polite!

It's a pseudo-technical term - it was one used by scientists of the past who didn't know what they were talking about, people like daddygringo here, who still think sexual orientation is a choice, and people like you, who are trying to be polite.

Saxi, you weren't even around in 2008. You never had the pleasure to meet Napoleon (come to think of it, I really wish he were around now. It would be fun to watch a young kid like him completely humiliate you in a debate). That said, you know what – I agree. "Retarded" is an offensive word, and it denigrates the mentally disabled. I was wrong to use it. I won't throw it around willy-nilly anymore, though somehow I don't think that's been the case for three years now.

Now stop derailing the thread. Like I said, I'm expecting a self-ban right about now.

I'm glad you have made the choice to join modern society, albeit in an amusingly passive-aggressive way.

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:47 pm

I hear you tho Inky and I can see you are offended. I likewise am offended by "white boy". Those are almost fighting words for me. When I was in NY I was called a White Nword. We were so stunned the offender was gone before we had a chance to jump the fence and wail on him.

From here on out, nobody can say the H word, the N word, the R word, or the W word.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:56 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:
Pirlo wrote:I always thought it's polite to use the technical term of something rather than the slang thing till I got banned from chat for saying "homo" meaning to be polite!

It's a pseudo-technical term - it was one used by scientists of the past who didn't know what they were talking about, people like daddygringo here, who still think sexual orientation is a choice, and people like you, who are trying to be polite.

Saxi, you weren't even around in 2008. You never had the pleasure to meet Napoleon (come to think of it, I really wish he were around now. It would be fun to watch a young kid like him completely humiliate you in a debate). That said, you know what – I agree. "Retarded" is an offensive word, and it denigrates the mentally disabled. I was wrong to use it. I won't throw it around willy-nilly anymore, though somehow I don't think that's been the case for three years now.

Now stop derailing the thread. Like I said, I'm expecting a self-ban right about now.

I'm glad you have made the choice to join modern society, albeit in an amusingly passive-aggressive way.

I'm still waiting for you to apologize for your anti-Semitic remarks.

Phatty: I am not personally offended. I am straight. If someone called me a homosexual, I would laugh at them, or just be confused. Anyway, I'm glad I've convinced you, at least.

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:01 pm

If I chose to stop using using the Hword it would take a while. The Hword is just the word everyone has always used in my experience, including teachers and college professors and presidents. It's my overall opinion however, that whatever word people call gays is going to wind up offensive. I am very surprised the Hword even qualifies. I thought it was the scientific name.

LGBTQ is pretty innocent sounding though.

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:04 pm

InkL0sed wrote:Honestly, no. I'm not open-minded enough to read things trying to prove that the earth is flat, or about how dinosaurs are just a theory, or that money grows on trees, etc - unless for entertainment value. Maybe I'll do it for that purpose later.

In any case, this thread wasn't designed for people like you. If you think people can choose their sexuality, there will be no convincing you, and you may as well continue using the term to expose yourself. I'm not going to debate the matter.

Thank you, you just proved me right. The Idea that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable part of who a person is, like race, is a myth without any logical or scientific support. People who believe it are just brainwashed by the entertainment media and have no recourse when challenged on it but to start throwing insults and bigoted stereotypes, as you just did.

I repeat:

daddy1gringo wrote:Here come all the insults that I am ignorant and bigoted. Show me the logical and scientific proof of which I am ignorant; I challenge you.

In the meantime, here is a link to an article. Yes, the article is from a "biased" source, that is, one that has, and attempts to support a particular opinion. So was the article in the op. But it references studies and surveys from various sources, even biased pro-gay sources. Are you open-minded enough to read it?

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

demonfork · Post by **demonfork** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:10 pm

InkL0sed wrote:
Pirlo wrote:I always thought it's polite to use the technical term of something rather than the slang thing till I got banned from chat for saying "homo" meaning to be polite!

It's a pseudo-technical term - it was one used by scientists of the past who didn't know what they were talking about, people like daddygringo here, who still think sexual orientation is a choice, and people like you, who are trying to be polite.

Saxi, you weren't even around in 2008. You never had the pleasure to meet Napoleon (come to think of it, I really wish he were around now. It would be fun to watch a young kid like him completely humiliate you in a debate). That said, you know what – I agree. "Retarded" is an offensive word, and it denigrates the mentally disabled. I was wrong to use it. I won't throw it around willy-nilly anymore, though somehow I don't think that's been the case for three years now.

Now stop derailing the thread. Like I said, I'm expecting a self-ban right about now.

Pseudo-technical :lol:

Scientists of the past didn't know what they were talking about when they coined the term "homosexual" dude where do you come up with this shit? do you just make it up as you go?

homosexual literally means "same sex"

do you get offended when people say "same sex marriages?

saxitoxin · Post by **saxitoxin** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:13 pm

Inkl0sed wrote:I'm still waiting for you to apologize for your anti-Semitic remarks.

As previously enunciated, Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitic in the same way being Anti-Rape isn't Anti-Sex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUJhHL0dK7E

http://www.ijsn.net/home/

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

http://www.nkusa.org/

I keep offering a frank discussion of Zionist racism in a purpose-dedicated thread but you keep slithering off. Now stop derailing the thread. Like I said, I'm expecting a self-ban right about now.

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:19 pm

P.S. to my previous post: To the rest of you, I apologize; I am sure that there are many with the courage, intellectual integrity, and intelligence to discuss this reasonably. I was merely ticked off at the hypocrisy of this guy's response.

...And P.P.S. My comments are absolutely on-topic.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:26 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Inkl0sed wrote:I'm still waiting for you to apologize for your anti-Semitic remarks.

As previously enunciated, Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitic in the same way being Anti-Rape isn't Anti-Sex.

Inkl0sed, your non-mainstream position is one only supported by radical neo-cons, racists, Islamaphobes, the Republican Party, these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUJhHL0dK7E), and the Zionist Occupation Regime in Palestine (ZORP).

In the words of the Jewish-German hero Markus Wolf after the passage of UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 identifying Zionism as a racist ideology, "Today the forces of progress stand aligned with free thinking people the world over in confronting the ideological successor to fascism."

Here are some links you can use to escape your luddite worldview and join our modern, progressive, intellectually-minded society as a fully functioning and engaged citizen:
- International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (http://www.ijsn.net/home/)
- Jews Not Zionists (http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/)
- Neteurei Karta (http://www.nkusa.org/)

I keep offering a frank discussion of Zionist racism in a purpose-dedicated thread but you keep slithering off. Now stop derailing the thread. Like I said, I'm expecting a self-ban right about now.

I keep "slithering off" because you're not worth it. You never appeared to have even understood how you were being anti-Semitic. You are stupid (here I might have said another word, but when I'm legitimately wrong, I admit it, unlike some other people whose egos are too large for truth-seeking) or you are a troll. The two of these are not mutually exclusive.

The word "Zionism" has nothing to do with anything. It was always another misdirection, which I should never have let myself fall into. You implied that AIPAC (ie, the Jews) have so much power they literally run the world. You can't get more anti-Semitic than that.

Speaking of misdirections, this is still another one, and I still shouldn't respond. So I won't anymore. If any real people want to discuss the issue at hand, I will.

PS. Also, the imagery in "slithering off" is quite dehumanizing. I thought the whole point of the "r-word" campaign was to uphold the humanity of the mentally disabled - looks like your hypocrisy is shining through in a second way.

saxitoxin · Post by **saxitoxin** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:36 pm

InkL0sed wrote:I keep "slithering off" because you're not worth it.

You never appeared to have even understood how you were being anti-Semitic. You are stupid (here I might have said another word, but when I'm legitimately wrong, I admit it, unlike some other people whose egos are too large for truth-seeking) or you are a troll. The two of these are not mutually exclusive.

The word "Zionism" has nothing to do with anything. It was always another misdirection, which I should never have let myself fall into.

Speaking of misdirections, this is still another one, and I still shouldn't respond. So I won't anymore.

You seem to believe you have little self-control. Do you find this influences much of your daily decision-making, InkL0sed? Expand on that a little.

InkL0sed wrote:PS. Also, the imagery in "slithering off" is quite dehumanizing. I thought the whole point of the "r-word" campaign was to uphold the humanity of the mentally disabled

I acknowledge responsibility and apologize, InkL0sed. I was not aware you were mentally disabled. Please accept my regret for saying "but you keep slithering off."

ManBungalow · Post by **ManBungalow** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:22 pm

I could swear that my opening of this thread is the reason I've started getting "gaydar" advertisements on youtube.

Gillipig · Post by **Gillipig** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:31 am

Can't we just come up with a name that includes all minorities? gays, blacks, redheads, midgets, handicapped, fat people (oops that's not a minority). They can't expect us to have a nice word to all of them individually! What do you call a handicapped black redhaired homosexual midget for example??? I dont know!!! Let's just call them something they can't be offended by like..... special people :lol:

!

Johnny Rockets · Post by **Johnny Rockets** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:38 am

InkL0sed wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:It's offensive.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay ... the-n-word

What the heck are they called then? I always thought homosexual was just the opposite of heterosexual.

That brings me to another point, thanks for reminding me. It's called the LGBT community. It stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual". That's what they call themselves.

So use those terms.

Until when?
Please inform the sheeple when the terms change from acceptable to offensive.
Because they will. They always do. Do you have your future un-offensive labels picked out yet when your current chosen set expires?
Homosexual is a scientific term no? Same with Transsexual and Bi-sexual.
Why are two of those acceptable and one is not?
You politically correct retards piss me off. Get over yourselves.

Cretin is the oldest and comes from a dialectal French word for Christian.[18] The implication was that people with significant intellectual or developmental disabilities were "still human" (or "still Christian") and deserved to be treated with basic human dignity. Individuals with the condition were considered to be incapable of sinning, thus "christ-like" in their disposition. This term is not used in scientific endeavors since the middle of the 20th century and is generally considered a term of abuse. "Cretinism" is also used as an obsolescent term to refer to the condition of congenital hypothyroidism, in which there is some degree of mental retardation.
Amentia has a long history, mostly associated with dementia. The difference between amentia and dementia was originally defined by time of onset. Amentia was the term used to describe an individual who developed deficits in mental functioning early in life, while dementia described individuals who develop mental deficiencies as adults. During the 1890s, amentia was used to describe someone who was born with mental deficiencies. By 1912, ament was a classification lumping "idiots, imbeciles, and feeble minded" individuals in a category separate from a dement classification, in which the onset is later in life.
Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability, where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers. The term was gradually replaced by the term profound mental retardation.
Imbecile indicated an intellectual disability less extreme than idiocy and not necessarily inherited. It is now usually subdivided into two categories, known as severe mental retardation and moderate mental retardation.
Moron was defined by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded in 1910, following work by Henry H. Goddard, as the term for an adult with a mental age between eight and twelve; mild mental retardation is now the term for this condition. Alternative definitions of these terms based on IQ were also used. This group was known in UK law from 1911 to 1959/60 as feeble-minded.
Mongolism was a medical term used to identify someone with Down syndrome. The Mongolian People's Republic requested that the medical community cease use of the term as a description of mental retardation. Their request was granted in the 1960s, when the World Health Organization agreed that the term should cease being used within the medical community.
In the field of special education, educable (or "educable mentally retarded") refers to MR students with IQs of approximately 50–75 who can progress academically to a late elementary level. Trainable (or "trainable mentally retarded") refers to students whose IQs fall below 50 but who are still capable of learning personal hygiene and other living skills in a sheltered setting, such as a group home. In many areas, these terms have been replaced by use of "moderate" and "severe" mental retardation. While the names change, the meaning stays roughly the same in practice.
Retarded comes from the Latin retardare, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder." The term was recorded in 1426 as a "fact or action of making slower in movement or time." The first record of retarded in relation to being mentally slow was in 1895. The term retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile because retarded was not (then) a derogatory term. By the 1960s, however, the term had taken on a partially derogatory meaning as well. The noun retard is particularly seen as pejorative; as of 2010, the Special Olympics, Best Buddies and over 100 other organizations are striving to help eliminate the use of the "r-word" (analogous to the "n-word") in everyday conversation

It seems to be fashionable to be offended. I for one refuse to let "Them" tell me what I should feel towards anything. The context of the label should be much more important than the word or wording itself.

The fact that you encourage the public to stop thinking and follow the rule setters is stunningly ignorant. You are what you are. If you take offense to every label that fits you, then you need to work on your self esteem.

Johnny Rockets

Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"

Re: Stop using the word "homosexual"