Conquer Club

Don't hate me for this guys, but I gotta do it

thaxitoxin wrote:Thelebrate Rainbowth & Thunshine!
- THAX!

Fixed...

InkL0sed wrote:As for what science uses, I believe it's acceptable to use "homosexual" if it's contrasted with "heterosexual", but not if contrasted with "straight". Most people, when using "homosexual", do not do this. If you are one of those people, you have no leg to stand on here.

Ok, that makes sense. I use heterosexual as well.

Further, I really think the key is simply to ASK people what they prefer if you know that they are homosexual. Of course, if you're not aware of it, that is a different issue entirely...hopefully, they will be considerate in informing you what they prefer.

InkL0sed wrote:Furthermore, the meaning the listener gives to a word doesn't matter at all. If you take it in a way that the speaker didn't mean it, that's just miscommunication or you being stupid (intentionally or not). If any individual gives a word meaning, it's the user of the word. The speaker is trying to convey one meaning with any utterance. The listener doesn't get to reinterpret the intended meaning if they want to communicate successfully (which, by the way, is the entire point of language).

I don't think I agree with this. The burden of communication falls on both parties, but primarily the speaker. However, "how the reciever is going to receive the information" IS the key to communication. That's why "knowing your audience" is so important.

Army of GOD wrote:Words only have meaning when we give them meaning. I choose to not be offended by words.

That's easy to say...but not as easy to practice.

BigBallinStalin wrote:If "homosexual" is not offensive, would anyone care to explain why the word "homo" is offensive?

See, I DO see a difference between the two. Perhaps it's just my personal experience, but the term "homo" is exclusively used in an offensive manner...I've never heard it otherwise. To my knowledge, it has never been otherwise.

The term "homosexual" is not used in that exclusive manner.

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Words only have meaning when we give them meaning. I choose to not be offended by words.

That's easy to say...but not as easy to practice.

Not for AOG and his impenetrable thick skin

I think think the real problem here is that many people still don't agree with or like homosexuality itself. So, to them, to say "homosexual" or anything else that refers to that is a negative. That is why I said it sounds like boys on the schoolyard calling each other "woman". They percieve it as bad. However, telling them to not say that gives the wrong message. The message is not "that word is bad, don't use it". The REAL message is people who are homosexual should not be treated badly. This particular issue gets a tad tricky because many religions are anti homosexuality. However, I think while we cannot (and, in honesty, should not) expect people to think well of homosexuality (in truth, I cannot say I think particularly highly of it), we absolutely CAN and SHOULD expect people to treat other people decently, regardless of whether their beliefs and ideals match our own or not.

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Words only have meaning when we give them meaning. I choose to not be offended by words.

That's easy to say...but not as easy to practice.

This is very true, but it is an important lesson. However, I don't mean the old school yard "words will never hurt me". We all know that is a flat out lie. Words DO hurt. However, when someone wants to make what you actually are a perjorative, then yes, part of understanding is saying "that is about them, not me". We all have to be proud of who we are. That, I think is where a lot of this PC and "self-esteem" stuff being taught really gets to be garbage. Self esteem is not about "whatever you do is OK", but it IS about "do your best and be proud" and "don't be ashamed of what you cannot change." The difference between real the fake is the second part... DO change what you can that hurts you or others, and DO NOT be proud if you are "slacking" (in whatever form).

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think think the real problem here is that many people still don't agree with or like homosexuality itself. So, to them, to say "homosexual" or anything else that refers to that is a negative. That is why I said it sounds like boys on the schoolyard calling each other "woman". They percieve it as bad. However, telling them to not say that gives the wrong message. The message is not "that word is bad, don't use it". The REAL message is people who are homosexual should not be treated badly. This particular issue gets a tad tricky because many religions are anti homosexuality. However, I think while we cannot (and, in honesty, should not) expect people to think well of homosexuality (in truth, I cannot say I think particularly highly of it), we absolutely CAN and SHOULD expect people to treat other people decently, regardless of whether their beliefs and ideals match our own or not.

I have to disagree. People use "gay" in a negative way as well, but nobody is saying to stop using it. Gays have embraced the word "gay", but not "homosexual" for a reason. "Homosexual" implies a diagnosis, a medical condition, as opposed to a sexual orientation. By your logic, we should be emphasizing the tolerance of black people, but we should never have bothered to stop using the n-word.

InkL0sed wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think think the real problem here is that many people still don't agree with or like homosexuality itself. So, to them, to say "homosexual" or anything else that refers to that is a negative. That is why I said it sounds like boys on the schoolyard calling each other "woman". They percieve it as bad. However, telling them to not say that gives the wrong message. The message is not "that word is bad, don't use it". The REAL message is people who are homosexual should not be treated badly. This particular issue gets a tad tricky because many religions are anti homosexuality. However, I think while we cannot (and, in honesty, should not) expect people to think well of homosexuality (in truth, I cannot say I think particularly highly of it), we absolutely CAN and SHOULD expect people to treat other people decently, regardless of whether their beliefs and ideals match our own or not.

I have to disagree. People use "gay" in a negative way as well, but nobody is saying to stop using it. Gays have embraced the word "gay", but not "homosexual" for a reason. "Homosexual" implies a diagnosis, a medical condition, as opposed to a sexual orientation.

Not true. It implies a description. It is exactly as much of a medical condition as the term heterosexual. Both very much are used. However, people who dislike homosexuality use that term, and the term "gay" as perjorative. In the past, that did include the psycology profession. However, that does not mean the term itself needs be negative.

InkL0sed wrote: By your logic, we should be emphasizing the tolerance of black people, but we should never have bothered to stop using the n-word.

Uh.. this may be a generational thing, but folks absolutely have stopped using the "n-word" in my experience. AND, tolerance absolutely has been emphasized.

This may be a matter of time and perspective. However, as much as I will absolutely affirm we are not "there" quite yet in racial equality, we have come a long, long way. It was absolutely not something that "just happened". The Jeffersons and Good Times both seem almost offensive today, but at the time, they broke ground. EVERYBODY (well, almost ) celebrated. By the time Cosby came along, it made a blip, but it was almost like "oh yeah.. you are right, he is black and that is kind of remarkable". How did that happen? Sesame street, Mr Rogers, school text books, ... etc etc etc. and yes, absolutely lots of rules and court action. We are not "there" yet, but if we cannot admit coming far, then going further will be even harder.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think think the real problem here is that many people still don't agree with or like homosexuality itself. So, to them, to say "homosexual" or anything else that refers to that is a negative. That is why I said it sounds like boys on the schoolyard calling each other "woman". They percieve it as bad. However, telling them to not say that gives the wrong message. The message is not "that word is bad, don't use it". The REAL message is people who are homosexual should not be treated badly. This particular issue gets a tad tricky because many religions are anti homosexuality. However, I think while we cannot (and, in honesty, should not) expect people to think well of homosexuality (in truth, I cannot say I think particularly highly of it), we absolutely CAN and SHOULD expect people to treat other people decently, regardless of whether their beliefs and ideals match our own or not.

I have to disagree. People use "gay" in a negative way as well, but nobody is saying to stop using it. Gays have embraced the word "gay", but not "homosexual" for a reason. "Homosexual" implies a diagnosis, a medical condition, as opposed to a sexual orientation.

Not true. It implies a description. It is exactly as much of a medical condition as the term heterosexual. Both very much are used. However, people who dislike homosexuality use that term, and the term "gay" as perjorative. In the past, that did include the psycology profession. However, that does not mean the term itself needs be negative.

Like I said, it depends. If it's contrasted with "heterosexual", it's ok. But in everyday speech, it isn't (seriously, who says "heterosexual"?) Historically, "homosexual" did refer to a medical condition - that is a fact.

I'm really not sure what the second part of your response was about. I think you misunderstood me.

InkL0sed wrote:Like I said, it depends. If it's contrasted with "heterosexual", it's ok. But in everyday speech, it isn't (seriously, who says "heterosexual"?)

I don't know that I've ever used the term "straight". I always thought it was a very odd appelation. I've absolutely used the term "gay" more often.

InkL0sed wrote:Historically, "homosexual" did refer to a medical condition - that is a fact.

It IS a "medical condition" inasmuch as any other desire is a medical condition. I mean, a predeliction for sweet tea over iced tea is a "medical condition" as that's what my taste buds and the connections to my brain find the most enjoyable.

I'm pretty sure we're not in the habit of calling every state of being ever a medical condition. Let's not be absurd. In any case you know what I mean: it was thought of as an illness that could and should be treated and cured.

Woodruff wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Like I said, it depends. If it's contrasted with "heterosexual", it's ok. But in everyday speech, it isn't (seriously, who says "heterosexual"?)

I don't know that I've ever used the term "straight". I always thought it was a very odd appelation. I've absolutely used the term "gay" more often.

InkL0sed wrote:Historically, "homosexual" did refer to a medical condition - that is a fact.

It IS a "medical condition" inasmuch as any other desire is a medical condition. I mean, a predeliction for sweet tea over iced tea is a "medical condition" as that's what my taste buds and the connections to my brain find the most enjoyable.

Exactly. That is my point.

Homosexuality is a real description. The word is used offensively because people feel the meaning is offensive. That is, it is not that homosexual is a bad word or negative one, it is that there are still a lot of people who dislike homosexuality.

Again.. it is like the school kids calling each other "woman" or "girl".

InkL0sed wrote:I'm pretty sure we're not in the habit of calling every state of being ever a medical condition. Let's not be absurd. In any case you know what I mean: it was thought of as an illness that could and should be treated and cured.

So what? People STILL think that. But that is irrelevant to the term.

Put it this way. You can now be changed from male to a female. Some people consider the other to be a kind of "false assignment" or even an "illness" of sorts. I certainly don't consider my gender a trap or an illness. Yet, people do. Your brother takes offense at being called sister or woman. Does that make the term itself wrong? Of course not!

So, too, with the term homosexual. It doesn't matter what term you use. Some people will find a way to make it derogative. Its not about the term. Its about the way people feel.

how is this thread so controversial?

words are assigned different meanings by different people. if you use a word, its effect on your listener will depend on their meaning of the word. so if they are offended by a word, and you don't want to offend them, don't use that word.

I think what should be being debated here is not the use of the word "homosexual" on the public domain (I'm sure all your dialog is correct and rational Ink)...

... but why, oh freaking why, would you make a big deal about it? Saying you can't do something is the worse way to approach a problem like this. You are just asking for idiots to be idiots and turn a small annoyance (people incorrectly using the word) into something more widespread.

I really want to say "suck it up, buttercup", but for obvious reasons that's inappropriate. How about "Bro, just deal with it *fistbump*"..?

It depends if your referring to the LGBTQI portion then buttercup fits.

I don't get why this is still being debated, there's real issues for you all the argue about so gracefully and passionatly.

I highly doubt homosexual will ever stop being used, its describing someone, correctly. If they have such a huge issue with the word then maybe they should see a therapist and seek out the real root of their esteem/shame?

Lootifer wrote:I think what should be being debated here is not the use of the word "homosexual" on the public domain (I'm sure all your dialog is correct and rational Ink)...

... but why, oh freaking why, would you make a big deal about it? Saying you can't do something is the worse way to approach a problem like this. You are just asking for idiots to be idiots and turn a small annoyance (people incorrectly using the word) into something more widespread.

I really want to say "suck it up, buttercup", but for obvious reasons that's inappropriate. How about "Bro, just deal with it *fistbump*"..?

My view on it is this: as a speaker, you should try to be sensitive to others (and not take the attitude of "suck it up", especially with complete strangers). Basically, don't use it at all to be safe.

On the receiving end, on the other hand, you should also be really sure it was meant in an offensive way before you call them out on it.

Lootifer wrote:I think what should be being debated here is not the use of the word "homosexual" on the public domain (I'm sure all your dialog is correct and rational Ink)...

... but why, oh freaking why, would you make a big deal about it? Saying you can't do something is the worse way to approach a problem like this. You are just asking for idiots to be idiots and turn a small annoyance (people incorrectly using the word) into something more widespread.

I really want to say "suck it up, buttercup", but for obvious reasons that's inappropriate. How about "Bro, just deal with it *fistbump*"..?

you're just asking for Ink to start ranting that you're an Anti-Semite and/or Homophobic Gayophobic

InkL0sed wrote:My view on it is this: as a speaker, you should try to be sensitive to others (and not take the attitude of "suck it up", especially with complete strangers). Basically, don't use it at all to be safe.

On the receiving end, on the other hand, you should also be really sure it was meant in an offensive way before you call them out on it.

NP, I do that anyway. /shrug and/zzz

I've always had a problem with the use of the word "homophobic". If I call someone a "fucking faggot", my use of that word does not mean I'm "afraid of homosexuals". I may be using the term offensively (I use the word "faggot" to mean an annoying person, similarly to the way South Park defines it, NOT specifically against gays), but people say it's homophobia.

People who insult blacks are racist, not negrophobes. Why don't we call people who insult gays as sexist, or genderist?

InkL0sed wrote:
My view on it is this: as a speaker, you should try to be sensitive to others (and not take the attitude of "suck it up", especially with complete strangers). Basically, don't use it at all to be safe.

On the receiving end, on the other hand, you should also be really sure it was meant in an offensive way before you call them out on it.

Its definitely a two way street. And, since most people use homosexual in a non-offensive way, taking offense is .. well, a bit obnoxious. Like Woodruff, I use it and heterosexual as parallels. Ironically, I don't often say "straight", because to me, that rather implies there is something "not straight" or "not OK" about homsexuality.

If I knew someone did not like any term, I would pretty much try to avoid it. That's manners. BUT.. not analyzing everyone's language for possible things about which you can be offended.. that, too, is manners.

Army of GOD wrote:Words only have meaning when we give them meaning. I choose to not be offended by words.

Also, everyone is a hypocrite. You, for example, probably still use offensive words, yet you're telling US not to use the word "homosexual". That's why being a hypocrite does not matter. It's trivial.

I'm not a hypocrite.

InkL0sed wrote:I'm pretty sure we're not in the habit of calling every state of being ever a medical condition. Let's not be absurd. In any case you know what I mean: it was thought of as an illness that could and should be treated and cured.

Some people, Michelle Bachmann for one, still believe that.

jimboston wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Words only have meaning when we give them meaning. I choose to not be offended by words.

Also, everyone is a hypocrite. You, for example, probably still use offensive words, yet you're telling US not to use the word "homosexual". That's why being a hypocrite does not matter. It's trivial.

I'm not a hypocrite.

Yea, and I'm not a heartthrob.