There's these commercials that are talking about how the use of the word 'gay' as a way to describe something bad is wrong. There's alot of people that use the word gay in a negative type of way just in spite of the commercials. What do you feel about those commercials or using the word gay as a way of describing something bad? Do you think that is protected by the 1st amendment rights? Just wanted to see what people thought about it.
But just accepting something wrong instead of trying to educate people is just as wrong. In the end we can't stop people from saying something but we at least try to educate people about why they should. Sometimes we can get to a person or two.
I haven't seen those commercials, but I do hear people use the word "gay" as an insult, which bugs me, because that's the opposite of what it means.
My trusty Dictionary widget describes "gay" as homosexual, but also as "lighthearted and cheerful". So if people are going to use something as an insult, "lighthearted and cheerful won't work very well.
Es gibt ein paar Kinder in meiner Schule, die zufällig zu Homosexuell, und sie wieder auf Alltag in der Schule, aber ich glaube nicht, dass es irgendetwas gibt, was falsch ist Homosexuell. Es ist nur eine Art und Weise des Lebens, und diese Person die Entscheidung, und sie sind berechtigt, aber mein Land hat die
I just lost the last part of the sentence... "But my country have it/something"? Lost there... But he is right, there is nothing wron with being homosexual, though I am not sure about the "way of living" part...
I just lost the last part of the sentence... "But my country have it/something"? Lost there... But he is right, there is nothing wron with being homosexual, though I am not sure about the "way of living" part...
Ah okay because I didn't feel like trying to translate it with dictionary.com
'Die' can mean either it or something like 'the'... I think there might be missing something there, but well... This is why people should write English..
On topic:
My trusty Dictionary widget describes "gay" as homosexual, but also as "lighthearted and cheerful". So if people are going to use something as an insult, "lighthearted and cheerful won't work very well.
Sadly, people ignore the definition, and just finds something else... Like in Danish, the word (here translated) Can (n) is both a, well, can and a word for a woman...
Where, when, how, etc., did the good-natured word "gay" pass into the vernacular as a designation for all things homosexual? Can one be homosexual without being gay, and vice versa?
â" Tom M., Los Angeles
Cecil replies:
Hate to tell you this, Tom, but the "good-natured word 'gay'" has been leading a double life. Although many people believe "gay" simply meant lighthearted or cheerful until it was shanghaied by the preverts, the truth is the word has long had a secondary connotation of sexual licentiousness. As early as 1637 the Oxford English Dictionary gives one meaning as "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life"--whence, presumably, the term "gay blade." In the 1800s the term was used to refer to female prostitutes; to "gay it" meant "to copulate."
By 1935 the word "geycat," meaning a homosexual boy, had found its way into print, giving a clue as to the direction things were starting to go. Sure enough, by 1955 "gay" had acquired its present meaning, as P. Wildeblood notes in Against Law: "Most of the officers had been "gay' ... an American euphemism for homosexual." Actually, gays had probably been using the term among themselves long before.
Ghettoization of the term began to occur in the 60s so that today "gay" in the sense of "homosexual" has chased out all other uses of the word. This is more the result of the squeamish attitude of the straight world than any organized campaign on the part of gays, and in any case it's no big deal; there are plenty of other words that cover the same territory that the non-sexual meanings of "gay" did.
At one time "gay" referred strictly to male homosexuals; female homosexuals were called lesbians. (This distinction may no longer hold true--today one hears lesbians being referred to as gay.) Whether all male homosexuals would consent to be called gay--whether, for the matter, all gays would consent to be called homosexual--is a question I will not presume to answer. I am quite certain, however, that most gays would reject the implication that "gay" necessarily implies promiscuity.
