I also vote yes, for the same reasons Nick mentioned.
Not really directly derogatory per se, but using "gay" as an synonym of "stupid" etc. is an insult to gays. It's basically using the concept that being homosexual is bad, and therefore to say something is bad, say "that's gay." Associating homosexuality with [anything you don't like (with may include homosexuality... in which case the person is probably using "that's gay" more acerbically] just adds to the general negative climate that gays have to live in.I've never heard it used as a derogatory toward homosexuals. o: That's just me.
I will now work on using something else other than, "That's gay."
(What I meant to say in the first place, but didn't express adequately.)
Scurry, scurry, Scurryous! You might just be the murriest. You certainly are the furriest! Hurry! Scurry! Scurryous!
It practically died after highschool anyway. The more common version I hear now is the prefixed 'fag' to denote a person with a particular attribute.
I think the best way to decide if you are going to be insulted is by intent. When a person says a chef statue is gay or a biker who is being loud and disruptive is a fag are they actually saying that the statue or biker is attracted to their own gender? No they aren't. If they say god hates all gay fags and will smite them with his just wrath are they being homophobic, probably. They should stop that.
Who sleeps shall awake, looking through the window of our lives
Waiting for the moment to arrive...
Show us the silence in the rise,
So that we may someday understand...
The usage of 'gay' to mean 'homosexual' is very well-established - in literature and journalism as well as the common parlance - to such an extent that dictionaries no longer consider it slang. The usage of 'gay' as a catch-all derogatory term is nowhere near as accepted. The meanings of words do change over time, yes, but it is well-understood that 'gay' refers to a homosexual; using 'gay' to refer to something which is not by any accepted definition of the term essentially degrades it.But how is it used incorrectly? Technically, calling men gay is using it incorrectly as the original meaning of the word was "happy". Words evolve and change/add meanings. No matter how annoying it is. o: So essentially, I agree with Maggot.It doesn't really offend me per se, it just annoys the pants out of me when people say it, because not only is it overused, it is overused incorrectly. So I voted yes.
The reason I most despise this usage of 'gay', however, does not concern its actual definition but the way in which it is used. Because of its employment as a term of disapproval for anything at all, it encourages a kind of linguistic laziness which I find infuriating and which essentially deprives the statement of meaning. The sentence "That test was gay!" tells me essentially nothing, except for some sort of vague disapproval of the test (and not necessarily even that). Why bother saying anything at all?
(This has turned out to be somewhat lengthier than I had expected!)
Josh Woodward, Ohio Singer/Songwriter, offers his songs for free. Give him a listen.
Apologies to everyone. Except Fritz.
First of all, Fritz, do yourself a favor and research your own answers before you post.
I'd probably have more to say about it if I heard it used in a derogatory way towards homosexuals, which it may have started out like in the 70's. Truly. But I haven't heard it used in that way any more than I have heard "dumb" used in a derogatory way towards mute people or "sucks" in a derogatory way towards drinking straws.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests