Posted on 07/06/2007 4:19:18 PM PDT by tuesday afternoon
The Washington Post published a pro-gay editorial today about marriage. And that's great. But they called us "homosexuals" throughout the piece, and that's not great. It's degrading and offensive and archaic.
I've written about this before, and some have disagreed. But I'd argue that those who disagree don't understand the nuance of language or of this particular phrase. Ask any gay person, regardless of whether they agree or disagree that the word "homosexual" is archaic and offensive, whether they use the term "gay" or "homosexual" to described themselves. I.e., "I'm gay" or "I'm a homosexual." Just ask them. Unless they're living under a rock, gay people rarely if ever use the word homosexual. (My gay-friendly straight friends, however, use the term all the time. In the same way that I still hear friends use the word "oriental.")
Why? First, because it's become archaic. Usage changes, and just as Negro and colored changed to black and African-American, just as oriental gave way to Asian, homosexual has become gay. But second, and more importantly, the word homosexual is offensive in the same manner as negro and oriental. Sometimes archaic words sting. In the case of homosexual, I think the main problem is three-fold. First, the clinical nature of the term. It's a scientific word that mildly dehumanizes gay people by suggesting that they have a medical or psychological condition. Second, the words "homo" and "sex." Both words connote something negative, or at least something that shouldn't be spoken out loud, to a lot of Americans. Third, and most importantly, homosexual is the word the religious right uses expressly and uniquely in an effort to dehumanize gays. Anti-gay religious right activists have said publicly that they will not use the word "gay" - rather, they insist on using "homosexual." Why? Because for some reason or another they figure that the word homosexual helps their cause. And while I don't agree with the religious right on many things, their ability to gay-bash swiftly and effectively is unqestioned. If they think the word gay helps us and the word homosexual hurts us, who am I to argue?
Again, I don't mean to opinionated about it, but if you don't hear the negative nuance in the word homosexual, it's either because you're not listening, or more likely, you don't have an ear for language. There's a reason that colored and Negro and oriental weren't offensive terms years ago, yet are today. The nuance of words changes over time. And while gays were once thought to be mentally disturbed - that all changed in 1973 - the language has not changed since that time.
It's time it did.
PS Don't believe me? Read what a communications professional has to say about this. (Actually, I hadn't read his piece until after I wrote mine, but the logic is remarkably similar.) Also, check out this recent editorial in the lead gay newspaper in the US.
I was thinking the same thing.
If homosexual is out, how about sodomite?
"The nuance of words changes over time. And while gays were once thought to be mentally disturbed - that all changed in 1973 - the language has not changed since that time." Someone said it yesterday...the new liberal buzzword is "nuance".
He may not be "mentally disturbed", which means he knows right from wrong and he's making a choice. And, what the heck happened in 1973???
I am not scared of homosexuals.
"Homophobic" means "fear of the same". And is the term that should be used to refer to supporters of "diversity"
Given their deviant behavior, I would think that it would take a lot more than a work to "degrade" them.
I've decided that being called a "heterosexual" is degrading and offensive and archaic. I want to be called by the new politically correct term: "Normal." (It goes without saying that people who are not "normal", i.e. homosexuals, can be referred to as "abnormal.")
This game is fun, isn't it?
I prefer “faggot” myself, and strongly object to the abuse of a perfectly good old English word like “gay”.
I think the new term replacing members of the queer nation is fecal obsessionist.
I think the new term replacing members of the queer nation is fecal obsessionist.
For people who want to be termed “happy”, they sure grouse a lot.
And while we’re at it, let’s drop the word “heterosexual.” That word was only dreamed up to replace the word “normal.”
As one medical transcriptionist to another, there’s a lot of terminology that makes me gag; homosexual ain’t one of them.
PLEASE DON’T USE THE WORD “GAY”!!!
So I guess I should be offended being called a heterosexual. I’m so confused.
You’re both quite right. The term `sodomite’ has been savagely suppressed for being uncomfortably descriptive of those to whom it applies. And a `homophobe’ if properly defined for its Greek roots is someone with an irrational fear of those who are exactly the same as him/herself.
As for me, I don’t fear my fellow straight heterosexual God-fearing conservative gun owners.
An African-American could easily be a white South African who has emigrated to the US.
Expect to hear from my friends in the Avian-American community.
I thought it was fudge packer (often posted with a picture - but I don’t have a copy).
I find it odd that when it comes to the abortion issue, leftists insist we use the medical terms zygote, embryo, and fetus as opposed to baby and child because these words dehumanize the unborn child and make abortion seem more acceptable. Yet, when it comes to homosexuality, leftists hollar when we use the scientific term, and they want us to use the term gay because it distracts from lifestyle and makes it seem for acceptable. Gotta love leftists, and their play on words.
You forgot “light in the loafers.” LOL!
Homosexual = Exclusively engaging in sexual activities with a person of the same gender Simpy because some have usurped the actual definition of the word Gay does not (IMHO) change the original meaning of the word. In my world, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . .
John Aravosis is well known for outing homosexual Republicans. And this scumbag is worried about people calling him a factual name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.