Do you think the expression gay for stupid is offensive and incorrect word usage?

[DemandCurve]

Do you think the expression gay for stupid is offensive and incorrect word usage?

[Enlightened One]

The term gay actually means, bright and pleasant or promoting a feeling of cheer. (which we all know) Society has mutated plenty of words into the abominations which are used today. Don't get me wrong, I too use slang, but you will never hear me say "oh that's gay." Terminology such as that just shows ones lack of intelligence. As for offensive, I would love to slap the taste out of someones mouth if they corrected me by saying that, but rising above the situation I would not. I could see how some groups could take it as offensive, and it's most certianly incorrect word usage.

[USMC the Almighty]

People need to stop being so damn sensitive all the time.

[saggyjones]

People need to stop being so damn sensitive all the time.

I agree. But if someone politely asks me to not use the word around them, I won't use it.

[Friendindeed]

Do you think the expression gay for stupid is offensive and incorrect word usage?

Yes, but I think the ones who use it that way are mostly middle school kids that are going through that sexual identity phrase.

[vyo476]

People need to stop being so damn sensitive all the time.

Bottom line, using something so close and personal to someone as their sexual orientation as a pejorative term is offensive. The rest of us have no means of comparison because hearing someone say, "That's so straight!" would be totally ridiculous in the context of a situation in which something "stupid" has happened. And there's the fact that admission to homosexuality is a tough thing to go through and hearing anyone who hasn't dealt with it equate that experience to simple stupidity is just plain, downright wrong. USMC, how did you feel when you heard John Kerry's comment of a while back which equated joining the armed forces to being uneducated?

[USMC the Almighty]

USMC, how did you feel when you heard John Kerry's comment of a while back which equated joining the armed forces to being uneducated?

I just thought quietly to myself that he's an idiot and moved on with my life. There's no point getting all fired up about it. For what? Some phony half-assed apology? He has a history of anti-military rhetoric so I wasn't at all surpirsed.

The point I'm making is that it's not worth being hyper-sensitive, always assuming that people are insulting you because of some characteristic.

[vyo476]

I just thought quietly to myself that he's an idiot and moved on with my life. There's no point getting all fired up about it. For what? Some phony half-assed apology? He has a history of anti-military rhetoric so I wasn't at all surpirsed.


Now imagine that he's saying that all the time. And its not just him; a lot of others are too. And imagine that everyone around him and the others who are saying it aren't saying anything back.

That's a little of what it's like to be a homosexual who hears and sees the prevalence of the word "gay" used in a pejorative manner.

[Fonz]

this thread is gay

[vyo476]

this thread is gay

And what is your stance on this issue, Fonz?

[9sublime]

When I was a bit younger I used to walk around shouting gay when I didn't like something. Looking back on how much I used it I'm surprised I didn't get smacked. It's not really appropriate, but its hardly the most offensive thing, seeing as its not having a dig at homosexuals, its taken on a whole new meaning and when people say it they don't say it to have a go at gays.

[Everylyric]

When I was a bit younger I used to walk around shouting gay when I didn't like something. Looking back on how much I used it I'm surprised I didn't get smacked. It's not really appropriate, but its hardly the most offensive thing, seeing as its not having a dig at homosexuals, its taken on a whole new meaning and when people say it they don't say it to have a go at gays.

Same goes for me.

[r0beph]

I think people that people fail to realize that the language itself is evolutionary. I could cite a thousand examples, I'll stick to just a couple. Often words come from other languages and lose their definition in the move, example L. Commodus meaning Comfort, became Commode the shift was based on the idea that the place was comfortable for what you tend to do there, as opposed to say an outhouse. However today Commode brings no ideas of comfort in the sense that commodus once brought. Intra-language shifts occur more often than these cross language moves. A good example aside from gay is "Piss" , O.French Pissier (to urinate) it maintains its original definition, to urinate is to piss.... however what does urination have to do with going away "piss off", or being angry, "Pissed Off". Nothing. in fact its simply a word filling a niche, often the definition shift seems a lean towards a non sequitor reasoning. Regardless, the fact remains, language changes, a large definition shift cannot be constituted as misuse. I'd save the term misuse for misnomers like oft over and misued "Ironic."

robf

[Grounded]

I think people that people fail to realize that the language itself is evolutionary.

You're right.

I failed to see that.

Thanks for the insight.

[r0beph]

In addendum;

I also don't believe that Gay as per things that are stupid / lame etc, should be considered derogatory to homosexuals. Gay as a term referring to homosexuals itself is a major definition shift. To use Gay in referral to homosexuals either A) insinuates they're all happy or B) is simply a definition shift with no real basis left in the usage. I choose B, since A follows stereotyping and thus is invalid in my opinion as a linguistic evolution. Just the same for Gay as something that's ridiculous or negative cannot be applied to an already once removed slangification of the original word meaning happy. That's just way too much assumption. The true nature of feeling offended by hearing a word should always apply to its context. Idiot (Original definition - person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning) original comes from L. Idiota meaning 'Ordinary person or Layman', I don't see ordinary people being upset when someone is called an idiot for doing something stupid. I mean it's a moot point, super sensitivity is problematic to lingual evolution, it's better to simply understand that the motions of language are ever changing currents that are modified by contemporary thought, no attempt or action can change the mass-conscious movement of language. With that understanding comes the knowledge that new definitions for words that in their context have no relation to another previous definition cannot be held liable for the word's connection to other meanings. Even this can be further looked into, and let's say the original meaning of this definition shift was an intended derogation to homosexuals, if someone using the word to refer to something in a negative light harbors no ill will to homosexuals than this cannot be brought forward, context is 99.9999%.

-----edit
Now imagine that he's saying that all the time. And its not just him; a lot of others are too. And imagine that everyone around him and the others who are saying it aren't saying anything back.

That's a little of what it's like to be a homosexual who hears and sees the prevalence of the word "gay" used in a pejorative manner.

I must add here that this is a largely different issue. The use of gay in reference to something, as I've covered before, has no contextual value to anything negative towards homosexuals. The word gay was definition-jacked already to refer to homosexuals. Another situation where this isn't really an issue but holds similar for comparative purposes. African-Americans are often referred to as "Black" (a word that means chromatically the lack of reflected light, and obviously they are a lighter tint and brown, which is quite unrelated to "black" definitively, comparitively this is to african american as gay is to homosexual) Hackers who do bad, are Black-Hats (denoting criminal intent etc.) Witchcraft (When it is a negatively viewed subject matter) is referred to as black arts, A Black out of information in the media is when there is no information on the subject (perhaps an african american should be upset, are they saying that to be "black" means you don't know much?) The point here is that these are all homonyms, not the same word. Gay - 1. Happy 2. Homosexual 3. lame, ignorant, stupid; This is how I view this word. It's not Gay - 1. Happy 2a. Homosexual 2b. lame, ignorant, stupid; Language simply does not function this way.

While on the subject let me add this; The contextual use of the word matters greatly and in the slanderous usage of "Gay" in name calling such as "You are gay" I can see being felt as an offense by homosexuals since you are using it to derogatorily refer to a heterosexual, thus imbuing the classification as homosexual as demeaning. This I don't condone and don't feel it is hypersensitivity or otherwise overzealous to dissuade people from using it as such.

[vyo476]

Look at intent then. If you hear someone on the street say, "That's so gay!" stop him and ask him what the word "gay" means. The intent is to express discontent with stupidity, ineptitude, or general disagreement; the implication is a link to homosexuality because the original definition of the word "gay" is almost never used in modern language, whereas the linkage of "gay" to homosexuality is quite prevalently used.

[r0beph]

Look at intent then. If you hear someone on the street say, "That's so gay!" stop him and ask him what the word "gay" means. The intent is to express discontent with stupidity, ineptitude, or general disagreement; the implication is a link to homosexuality because the original definition of the word "gay" is almost never used in modern language, whereas the linkage of "gay" to homosexuality is quite prevalently used.


I simply cannot look at a word and feel a connection just because of a heavily used homonymic definition. The amount of a word's specific definition's use in contemporary society cannot be used to gauge another definitions intent. That's splicing apples with oranges. I know exactly what someone referring to something in the "That's so gay," context means. And I see no correlation. The definitions have been split they no longer are of the same stock. At this point in the word's etymological evolution it has become two different words whose only link is in being homonyms. I've many gay friends and I can safely say that I hear from them in appx. the same frequency use the "that's so gay," context without even noticing. I feel safe in this subject matter since this was a discussion I had on IRC with a couple gay friends, that I brought up after one of them called a major software company gay for filing some frivolous IP lawsuits. The results were humorous as he said he didn't even make the connection when saying it. So perhaps my bias lays with that one situation. I try to remain objective and use those points as my main panel in arguing this. I believe the rift lays mainly with the age group in which people reside in, older people tend to frown on this usage where as younger generations tend to delineate them in to their bipartite definitions. Those who were not exposed to the two usages of the words on a regular basis tend to associate the word "Gay" with homosexuality and have trouble meshing the newer definition into their language core. This would make for an interesting linguistics study I think.

robf;

[9sublime]

The word has taken on a new meaning. Just like there can be two defintions of other words.

[vyo476]

However, this "new meaning" cannot be clearly defined. There are implications in the way it is used, that it may refer to ineptitude, stupidity, or a differing opinion considered lesser by the user of the phrase, but none of these definitions are very concrete. The word "gay" became a pejorative, as in the instance of "That's so gay," because the word was linked to homosexuality.

While the argument can be made that there are now two new definitions of the word gay (in addition to its original meaning) the latest would not have come about with the existence of the former. There is still a connection there.

[r0beph]

Warning depending on your locale some of this post may be NSFW, although I don't feel that educational usage should be covered by censorship several sexist/racially charged words are used for demonstration.

However, this "new meaning" cannot be clearly defined. There are implications in the way it is used, that it may refer to ineptitude, stupidity, or a differing opinion considered lesser by the user of the phrase, but none of these definitions are very concrete. The word "gay" became a pejorative, as in the instance of "That's so gay," because the word was linked to homosexuality.

While the argument can be made that there are now two new definitions of the word gay (in addition to its original meaning) the latest would not have come about with the existence of the former. There is still a connection there.

Don't get me wrong, I harbor no ill will or any such towards anyone for their choices (or genetic makeup) in sexual preferences. I just can't with a good feeling agree with this. I fully understand the why's that are explained as to their offense taking at the word. I just don't as fully agree with it. Opinions can only be argued for so long before it's an obvious partisan deadlock. I don't even use that word. The problem is that from a linguistics standpoint most culture related euphemisms go through pejoration, in fact I can think of very few that haven't. So is the life of a culture referential euphemism. Once this occurs melioration is very rare. Example evolution of euphemism->pejorative shifts. I added a ~~ section to denote words not included as this is simply intended to show the manner not the complete history.

cripple refers to 'handicapped' persons in a non disparaging manner --> Cripple shifts pejoratively --> ~interim euphemistic evolutions~ --> Handicappped replaces previous pejorative shifting word --> new euphemism replaces handicapped.

I'll show two examples for the homosexual issue here;

Pejorative shift;

Homosexual refers to gays in an non demeaning manner --> shift occurs, however homosexual is reduced to homo pejoratively but the euphemistic shift also occurs --> ~interim shifts~ --> gay is the euphemistic fore word --> currently in the pejorative shift. Actually two, since Gay is often used to harass heterosexuals as well as refer to something in a negative light, the two uses differ in their delivery and context. [] also Homosexual still retains it's euphemistic value since it's shift was not homonymic but rather having been shortened to homo.

Faggot/fag becomes pejorative towards homosexuals --> terms arise showing melioration, such as fag-hag, that are used by homosexuals in non-disparaging manner --> Many homosexuals now refer to each other as "faggot" or "fag" however just as with many other shifts such as this ( redneck, chink, redskin, ****** ) the use by someone outside of the culture that the remark normally disparages could not use it in a euphemistic manner.

I guess my opinion really sits with lingual history, it's gonna go where it goes, it's the way things are. I guess I can agree the connection is there since to follow the euphemism treadmill it has to be related. However I'll maintain that it's a mass-conscious effect and the mass-conscious of a language does not care. Why should anyone take offense to a given? (This trend can be observed in thousands of years of etymology).

I do however also have a slight misgiving about totally agreeing with you due to the fact that the pejorative shift of 'gay' was so distinct that it may eventually lose all relation to the euphemistic 'gay'. IMHO - Operational usage of a word that's gone into such a bipartite shift often has a difficulty with delivery insuring correct context, this case again does not contain that difficulty since using this pejorative in reference to a person actually is using a unique usage unrelated to the shift in question. Thus while the actuality of the definition may be difficult to pen down, it's usage still maintains zero contextual relations to Gay as per Homosexual.


robin f.

----
All typos are the responsibility of the author, he maintains no liability for his lack of typing skills while in desperate need of sleep...

[Freethinker]

I think the term GAY has outlived its intent. I believe the new term for overtly homosexual men should be FAAAABULOUS but when you say it youve got to raise both hands palms forward and fingers outsteached and open your eyes real wide . This is so much more descriptive.

[Segep]

wow r0beph, nice posts. You really made me work for that. Am I right when I boil your argument down to:

a) there's no reason to get your panties in a bunch over someone using the word "gay" as slang for "lame", because it can't possibly be related to homosexuals

b) some people do get their panties in a bunch, so why use it if it's going to tick people off?

Thanks

[r0beph]

wow r0beph, nice posts. You really made me work for that. Am I right when I boil your argument down to:

a) there's no reason to get your panties in a bunch over someone using the word "gay" as slang for "lame", because it can't possibly be related to homosexuals

b) some people do get their panties in a bunch, so why use it if it's going to tick people off?

Thanks

Muwhahahaa digging up old posts is fun. But I never responded so let me. My point was neither, my point is that usage of 'gay' in a context that is referential to a negative situation has no bearing upon its homonym definition as referring to gays. The etymological cycle of words is well noted. Let me first concede a small area of this, Gay more than likely brought this adjective homonym to the forefront when someone began using it in a pejorative manner to express dislike for a situation; this is unlike using it in a manner of name calling, but I'm betting this was its root. There is a demarcation in the game of 'name calling' in which the name no longer really relates to its original meaning and simply becomes an undefined disparage. Example, to call one a son of a ***** is literally, child of a dog, however when someone calls me this, the thought does not arise that would be lingually associated with puppies or the next lineage of dogs from a mother hound, but rather it simply clicks a, hey that wasn't nice button in the language centers in your brain. Same goes for calling people "gay" eventually it loses its homosexual connotation and thus is undefined, then it has shifted to a euphemism for something that's bad. However, the name calling form of "gay" while could be offensive to homosexuals is interim yet unrelated to the latter context. We can look at it like this, where upper case is Pejorative and lower case is Euphemistic x -> X-> Y -> y -> z , now I can simply define this definitive shift in the word. x = gay defined as homosexual (a word that has no negative connotation at its inception), X = gay as a homosexual, now it carries some offense to it, pejorative shift in etymological time line, Y = Gay used to disparage another, this carries a definition of homosexual, but is used to refer to non homosexuals disparagingly, y = Gay used as a disparaging remark, yet doesn't carry a context nor definition of homosexuality as it has lost this meaning and while its root does retain the connection, it no longer sparks the same connections in the mind as Gay reference to a homosexual, z = Gay uses in same context a y, only used as an adjective to refer to something as bad, however does not conjure the ideas of anything related to homosexuality ....


now mind you people will take offense, but that isn't the point, the point is that words follow a definitive shift that is easily observable, The context and definition of a word express how it will be decoded by our language centers in our brain. When I think of a Gay person and when I think of a Homosexual person my brain decodes this into the same exact thought. When someone says It's gay that the yankees lost to boston, I don't have anything even remotely resembling the feelings from the word Gay as a homosexual... Hope this makes sense... I know you tried to bring it down into two short lines but let me do that for you myself...

1) Gay in reference to something being bad is not associated with Gay as a homosexual thus should not conjure any offense, while the definition shift did go through some offensive reasoning, it really carries none now and its completely formed Homonym set.

2) see 1.

[NO Obamanation]

Bottom line, using something so close and personal to someone as their sexual orientation as a pejorative term is offensive. The rest of us have no means of comparison because hearing someone say, "That's so straight!" would be totally ridiculous in the context of a situation in which something "stupid" has happened. And there's the fact that admission to homosexuality is a tough thing to go through and hearing anyone who hasn't dealt with it equate that experience to simple stupidity is just plain, downright wrong. USMC, how did you feel when you heard John Kerry's comment of a while back which equated joining the armed forces to being uneducated?

When the term "gay" started to mean homosexual it was offending to many older people who used the word correctly, meaning happy. Now the new thing is to say it in a way it means stupid, and that is offending homosexuals. But the older generation was offended first.

and besides this, the word stupid used to be a clinical word like moron & dumb for people who had mental challenges. for a very long time people took offense to the words stupid, dumb and moron.

The American language changes through time. Eventually gay will not mean homosexual at all or happy it will just mean stupid. then after a while (assuming the planet survives) it will mean something else and people will debate if its good to use the word for those other things.

My little nephew has mental challenges, so it hurts me more than most can understand when i hear words like stupid or moron. Those are words the doctor would of called him or kids i have met with problems like his 50 years ago.

why dont we go find out what they called things before they started using stupid or dumb or moron or retarded? because if we are going to walk on egg shells not of offend some, then we should walk on egg shells not to offend all.

[PLC1]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay
Main Entry:
1gay Listen to the pronunciation of 1gay
Pronunciation:
\ˈgā\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French gai, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gāhi quick, sudden
Date:
14th century

1 a: happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b: keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>2 a: bright, lively <gay sunny meadows> b: brilliant in color3: given to social pleasures; also : licentious4 a: homosexual <gay men> b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>

Nope. It doesn't say anything about "stupid"

Words have meanings. Ascribing to them meanings that they don't have just adds confusion to the conversation.

See also: Liberal, conservative, socialist, Communist.

[NO Obamanation]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay


Nope. It doesn't say anything about "stupid"

Words have meanings. Ascribing to them meanings that they don't have just adds confusion to the conversation.

See also: Liberal, conservative, socialist, Communist.

the dictionary you had up there showed homosexual under the meaning of the word gay but that was added much later. when the word was first used it never meant homosexual.

by the way what is wrong with saying homosexual? i never refere to homosexuals as gay. i always refere to them as homosexuals.


For very happy people we should use the word gay

for homosexuals we should use the word homosexuals

for people who have lower IQ's or are slower in their thinking, ... i dont know what we should use. but the words first used are now used as cut downs so I dont think we should use the those.

[PLC1]

the dictionary you had up there showed homosexual under the meaning of the word gay but that was added much later. when the word was first used it never meant homosexual.

by the way what is wrong with saying homosexual? i never refere to homosexuals as gay. i always refere to them as homosexuals.


For very happy people we should use the word gay

for homosexuals we should use the word homosexuals

for people who have lower IQ's or are slower in their thinking, ... i dont know what we should use. but the words first used are now used as cut downs so I dont think we should use the those.

Right off hand, I can't think of any word meaning low IQ that isn't a pejoritive.

Gay has meant homosexual for a very long time.

[NO Obamanation]

Right off hand, I can't think of any word meaning low IQ that isn't a pejoritive.

Gay has meant homosexual for a very long time.

How long is a very long time? I am betting less than 50-6o years. I think it was occasionally being used as slang in the 50s, 60's I think at first the only homosexuals that were referred to as gay were the really Flamboyant males. And I don’t think it was meant as a term of endearment. After the 70s it was regularly being used for any male homosexual.

Before that, the word never meant anything but certain kinds of happy, having NOTHING to do with any ones sex life.

The rainbow has a similar problem. The original meaning of the rainbow was a covenant between the Creator and His creation. But since 1978 its new meaning is gay pride. Then later the Noachide’s have used it to mean the 7 laws in their religious beliefs. Only the second group has protested the use of their symbol for the third, but it wasn’t ever theirs first.

[vyo476]

I think you're missing the point. In common language, "homosexual" and "gay" have become synonyms - while there are plenty of people who are aware that "gay" started out meaning something else and became a slang term, today the two words have come to mean the same thing. One of the hazards of a living language - the language evolves and changes over time.

Part of that change is that "gay" has begun to be a pejorative for "stupid" or "negative." Homosexuals don't appreciate that for obvious reasons. They probably didn't much appreciate the application of the word "gay" to them, but it began in the 1920s and flourished in the 40s, 50s, and 60s - which, with the exception of the last, were not decades that were heavily tolerant to homosexuality. Back then, had they protested being called something they didn't like, they'd have been declared to have a mental disorder (which was how homosexuality was viewed prior to the 70s). By the time the homosexual population began to have a voice, "gay" was insinuated into standard English, and they chose to own it for themselves - perhaps in the ironic way that many Native Americans prefer to be referred to as Indians. For whatever reason, that's their choice - as it is their choice to protest usage of their self-identifying monikor as a pejorative phrase. I support that choice as an ardent supporter of homosexual rights.

This is a rather ridiculous debate topic. Just take a look at the thread title: "Do you think the expression gay for stupid is offensive and incorrect word use?" In order to answer that, the best thing you can do is ask someone who is gay, and see what they have to say.

[The Scotsman]

My sister in law is called Gay - sheeeesh what the frack do I call here now????

My next door neighbour and I were having a laugh over a few beers the other day discussing football, he supports Arsenal (tosser!), however, he could not understand my choice of team and to be frank with you all was not very friendly about the situation with Gillingham United FC..... so I called him a dickhead! This, however, did not really phase him or send him into a fit of politically correct huffing and puffing as he is neither called Richard Head or has a head like a penis - I reckon he guessed it was meant in jest!

Are we getting too wrapped up in this politically correct bollox? I imagine that if there is a Dickhead Lobby then they are not that influencencial as we call a lot of people dickheads! On the otherhand the Gay Lobby is quite strong and vocal and influencial and boring and touchy and and and......we end up having discussions like this ;)

PS does a Gay Lobby have chintz curtains d'ya reckon?? :D

[NO Obamanation]

I think you're missing the point. In common language, "homosexual" and "gay" have become synonyms - while there are plenty of people who are aware that "gay" started out meaning something else and became a slang term, today the two words have come to mean the same thing. One of the hazards of a living language - the language evolves and changes over time.

Part of that change is that "gay" has begun to be a pejorative for "stupid" or "negative." Homosexuals don't appreciate that for obvious reasons. They probably didn't much appreciate the application of the word "gay" to them, but it began in the 1920s and flourished in the 40s, 50s, and 60s - which, with the exception of the last, were not decades that were heavily tolerant to homosexuality. Back then, had they protested being called something they didn't like, they'd have been declared to have a mental disorder (which was how homosexuality was viewed prior to the 70s). By the time the homosexual population began to have a voice, "gay" was insinuated into standard English, and they chose to own it for themselves - perhaps in the ironic way that many Native Americans prefer to be referred to as Indians. For whatever reason, that's their choice - as it is their choice to protest usage of their self-identifying monikor as a pejorative phrase. I support that choice as an ardent supporter of homosexual rights.

This is a rather ridiculous debate topic. Just take a look at the thread title: "Do you think the expression gay for stupid is offensive and incorrect word use?" In order to answer that, the best thing you can do is ask someone who is gay, and see what they have to say.


All I can do is disagree with you. But I respect your right to believe how you want. Hopefully I have the same right to believe as I do.

I saw a student in my school get suspended for saying “oh that’s so gay” talking about some project he didn’t want to do. I disagree with the school for the actions. The kid was not in any way talking about or referring to homosexuals. What he said was like saying “that’s so boring, or that’s so lame “I don’t agree with being overly sensitive to some but not to others.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say on this topic ;)

[dahermit]

"...The term gay actually means, bright and pleasant or promoting a feeling of cheer. .." Therefore, to use the word "Gay" for the meaning of homosexual is incorrect.

[PLC1]

History of the word gayThe word gay has been used to refer to homosexuals since the 1800s. Originally it was more understood by gays themselves than by straights. So it could be a way of talking about being gay without saying you were homosexual. By the 1980s though, most people knew the alternate meaning of the word gay was homosexual.

From Wickipedia: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#History_of_the_word_gay

[r0beph]

My whole point is that while whether it is offensive or otherwise, I have no real argument, it is, to those the word's homonymic definition applies to, for obvious reasons. My argument is purely on the grounds of is it incorrect, no word is incorrect unless the meaning is a misinterpretation of the word. The use of gay in discourse to refer to something objectionable to the caller was intentional, and most definitely not an accidentally misusage of malconstruction based on an improper assumption of the words definition. Incorrect is using 'insure' to 'ensure someone of something,' or the all too common incorrect use of irony, all too common today, but gay, no it was intentional and not 'incorrect'. Unless by incorrect you incorrectly meant to say "morally objectionable" in which case, I'll give you that, although I could suggest some other words to use in its place in future subject along these lines.

[vyo476]

I saw a student in my school get suspended for saying “oh that’s so gay” talking about some project he didn’t want to do. I disagree with the school for the actions. The kid was not in any way talking about or referring to homosexuals. What he said was like saying “that’s so boring, or that’s so lame “I don’t agree with being overly sensitive to some but not to others.

And I suppose people began using the term "gay" in a derogatory sense, connotating uselessness and/or stupidity, as an extension of the first definition, "excessively happy"?

No. People began using the word "gay" in a negative sense when "gay" became an adjective describing homosexual behavior. It's quicker and easier than saying "That's so homosexual" and comes with a built-in ambiguity to justify its continued usage. Maybe that kid didn't realize he was poking fun at homosexuals - the discrimination becomes subconscious - but any homosexuals who heard him knew exactly what was going on.

That said, a suspension is a bit heavy-handed; recognition of what I've outlined and a relative slap on the wrist (purely metaphorically speaking, of course) probably would have sufficed - and actually taught him the appropriate lesson, rather than just punishing him without really explaining why he was being punished.

[r0beph]

And I suppose people began using the term "gay" in a derogatory sense, connotating uselessness and/or stupidity, as an extension of the first definition, "excessively happy"?

No. People began using the word "gay" in a negative sense when "gay" became an adjective describing homosexual behavior. It's quicker and easier than saying "That's so homosexual" and comes with a built-in ambiguity to justify its continued usage. Maybe that kid didn't realize he was poking fun at homosexuals - the discrimination becomes subconscious - but any homosexuals who heard him knew exactly what was going on.

That said, a suspension is a bit heavy-handed; recognition of what I've outlined and a relative slap on the wrist (purely metaphorically speaking, of course) probably would have sufficed - and actually taught him the appropriate lesson, rather than just punishing him without really explaining why he was being punished.

The problem is that since this is current and in a reverse evolutionary order than the use of "Black" to refer to evil/bad and then the latter usage of black to refer to those of african decent. This has a negative connotation, however do to the progression of the word evolution it is not considered such Now had the original sense been to refer to those of african descent and the moved into meaning evil / bad / difficult I assure you the same arguments would be used for this as you are for the word gay, however it takes a moment of thought to see quite simply, they are the same however it goes. The meaning of words, not how they got there is central to their scope, language is as such, attempting to stifle evolution of language is a silly and futile effort...

[vyo476]

The problem is that since this is current and in a reverse evolutionary order than the use of "Black" to refer to evil/bad and then the latter usage of black to refer to those of african decent. This has a negative connotation, however do to the progression of the word evolution it is not considered such Now had the original sense been to refer to those of african descent and the moved into meaning evil / bad / difficult I assure you the same arguments would be used for this as you are for the word gay, however it takes a moment of thought to see quite simply, they are the same however it goes. The meaning of words, not how they got there is central to their scope, language is as such, attempting to stifle evolution of language is a silly and futile effort...

The connotation of negativity surrounding the color "black" predates anti-African bigotry and stems most probably from the perception of night being a dangerous time. A lot of old school religions also taught fear of dark places, especially dense forests and caves. Black, darkness, the lack of light, etc. are all ancient symbols which, in a metaphorical sense, teach people to fear the unknown. It is fairly easy to distinguish between people who use that form of symbolism and people who make reference to "black" or its synonyms in a negative context while referring to those of dark skin (whether they be Africans, African Americans, Caribbean islanders, etc.). The latter is clearly unacceptable, but the former, those symbolic usages of darkness, while not necessarily progressive are at least tolerable.

The connotation of negativity surrounding the word "gay" stems entirely from homophobia. That's where it came from, no question about it. There's no historical, metaphorical, or linguistic value in "gay" meaning "stupid." It is bigotry made common language.

[r0beph]

The connotation of negativity surrounding the color "black" predates anti-African bigotry and stems most probably from the perception of night being a dangerous time. A lot of old school religions also taught fear of dark places, especially dense forests and caves. Black, darkness, the lack of light, etc. are all ancient symbols which, in a metaphorical sense, teach people to fear the unknown. It is fairly easy to distinguish between people who use that form of symbolism and people who make reference to "black" or its synonyms in a negative context while referring to those of dark skin (whether they be Africans, African Americans, Caribbean islanders, etc.). The latter is clearly unacceptable, but the former, those symbolic usages of darkness, while not necessarily progressive are at least tolerable.

The connotation of negativity surrounding the word "gay" stems entirely from homophobia. That's where it came from, no question about it. There's no historical, metaphorical, or linguistic value in "gay" meaning "stupid." It is bigotry made common language.

Just for historical note, Black in reference to dark skinned persons stems from from the usage of Blackmoor to refer to the Moors (north african berbers) this was first seen in 1547, black in reference to evil was first seen in 1583. While the previous blackmoor was purely adjectory, the noun usage was not seen until the 1620s. (eg. blacks). So technically your statement is incorrect, although I'm not sure the actual evolutionary path the words took at those times as only the written references of the times that document the usage in these contexts exist, not previous entries as to its spoken counterpart.

rf