Gay Homophobe. My Proposed Retaliation and Re-education Plan.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Dear jonjonj,

I completely agree with you, so there. One word is wildly insufficient. But, what is going to happen in reality? Is anyone going to nudge his walking companion and say "Do you see that young adult, from a moderately deprived economic background and a poor school system, who has to shore up his threatened manhood by external symbols of group acceptance?" As informative as that would be, it is, alas, Utopian.

What you might hear is "See that thug?" That's why we have to be extra careful about the few words we do use.

Speaking about appropriated words, I'm waiting for us to adopt "Gatitiowurst." As far as I know, that means "Kitten sausage."

Seniority? Me? Well of course I'm senior, you old whippersnapper, and don't you forget it. Why, I remember back in '58. I typed Will Wilson into Boot Hill with my trusty old Remington (typewriter). Billy was a strange kid, and I kind of hated to deal with him that harshly. But when I say strange, I mean really strange. His nickname around these parts was Three Dollar Bill.

With respect,
Charles1952

You seem to be misinterpreting the adjective gay for the noun gay. I am sure that even Merriam's rather sad dictionary defines each.
And might I add that the old bill story made me roar...like a lion...anyway...

My highest regards.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Dear jonjonj,

You're probably right, but may I beg forgiveness on the grounds that no less a figure than our own eminent scholar OrphanApology has said this:

I rate being able to express one's relationships and beliefs above an extra word for 'happy'.

Better minds than mine have seen the implied word "gay" to be an adjective modifying both "relationships" and "beliefs."

Dark waters, indeed.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

I think you meant to attribute that quote to a different user.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Jonjonj

Dear jonjonj,

You're probably right, but may I beg forgiveness on the grounds that no less a figure than our own eminent scholar OrphanApology has said this:

I rate being able to express one's relationships and beliefs above an extra word for 'happy'.

Better minds than mine have seen the implied word "gay" to be an adjective modifying both "relationships" and "beliefs."

Dark waters, indeed.

Indeed, murky one could almost say, however the use of the article `a` preceding the word gay definitely indicates a noun needed to be here to me, especially when no other noun is evident. As such I cling to my rod of comfort , as it were, and land the fish. Better a bird in the hand etc...

With respect,
Charles1952

Sorry for responding to your post in a quote, android tablet, enough said i think.

i'm so emotionally drained i may not be reading correctly and i'm not understandind.

Homophobia shouldn't be used for people who don't like homosexuals? would Bigot be a better choice? or would nothing at all? i mean people use words to define people even if it stretches the original meaning.


words are meaningless without intent behind them, Fag means something different yet people do use it as a Gay slur,

i think that Bigot may be the best choice then, but people get upset being called a Bigot right? "Why can't i disagree with homosexuality without being called a Bigot First Amendment" as i've heard multiple times. i think i would have more respect for people if they were honest with themselves, if you make bigoted comments you can be called out on them, i would have more respect if they just owned it... maybe that is getting off topic though

a reply to: OrphanApology

SORRY, I WAS WRONG. (YET AGAIN)

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Dear Darth_Prime,

I was hoping to see you again, I'm honored.

This thread had at least three purposes that jump to the top of my mind. There might have been five, my mind doesn't stay organized for more than 5 or 10 minutes.

By breaking the words apart and treating them as words only, I was hoping to slow some of the instantaneous reactions those words create among nearly everybody. I suppose the same thinking inspired the logical breakdown of the words, so we could focus on meaning instead of emotions.

I also wanted to point out that while Gays, understandably, are sensitive about every word applied to them, I haven't detected that same sensitivity to the feelings of the Straights. (Thank you again for your patience, you are exceptional on ATS.)

I wasn't sure that was fully realized, at least based on some of the comments I see from some on ATS. I wanted to say "Both sides can cause hurt with words they're using. Neither is morally superior to the extent that can declare the other side to be evil." Yet, even you, who I admire immensely, chooses the word "bigot" to replace homophobe.

Ok, I understand that there are completely hate-filled people out there. I suppose there are some on both sides, but I don't know, and I don't care, who is the worst.

History, Buddha, Dali Lama, Jesus, all point to the lesson that the fighting just has to stop, even if we have to take the first step ourselves and suffer to attain peace. "Love your enemy." Sure, everybody says it's impossible, but not many are actually trying it out. You and I have done it. Others can, and should, too.

Oh, another reason? If both sides were equally vicious and outspoken in their choice of words (Normal, bigot, pervert, etc.) it will become much uglier than anyone really wants.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

It's always nice to talk with you, you show me respect regardless if we agree on topics or not, and i love to talk about such social issues, now as you and most of you know, i'm only 23(almost 24) so i don't have as much worldly knowledge, and i am ignorant on a lot of "Legalities" and Laws etc

i believe the sensitivity comes from a place of being put there, many of us have faced abuse be it verbal or physical, now it's not just Gays, people get bullied all the time, people come at people for various reasons, i don't want to pretend that we(gays) are the only victims, but that is not to lessen the abuse we have faced... to go back into the LGBT herstory is full of it.

but it also seems that people come at us with Hate with a purpose of degrading us and belittling us as a sub-human third class citizen

that being said, if you notice i don't use the "Homophobic" or "Bigot" card much if at all, understandably words are just words, meaningless without intent or context

you can call me a fag, the original definition may be a cigarette, but it's the hate and intent behind that word that causes the reaction

a reply to: Darth_Prime
Dear Darth_Prime,

Thanks for holding on even after I had presented a fairly strange thread. I would have never guessed your age, it's especially impressive that you can put up with us old geezers.

Now comes the impossible question for the twentieth time, what do we do?

Gays are sensitive because of past treatment, Straights see an aggressive attack as gays try to reach their goals. What happened to get us to this pit?

Should the Gays spent more effort in outreach and education instead of laws and pressure? Is it possible for them to tell the rest of the country, "We need help. We all have serious problems, maybe your family has a genetic disease, maybe the economy has wiped you out, maybe you live in a high crime area. Let's put aside the angry arguments for a while and help each other get through this tough time in our country. When we're all back on our feet, maybe the situation will have changed and we can talk this out like the friends we've become."

I'd give a lot to see the local Gays and the NRA team up on a service project. Or maybe with the Knights of Columbus. I know I'd welcome you to join with us. (In fact, I'd be willing to look into that seriously if i had a decent contact to talk with about it. You up for helping with Special Needs Children's programs?)

With respect,
Charles1952

What the blank is wrong with this screwed up world?


It's always nice to talk with you, you show me respect regardless if we agree on topics or not, and i love to talk about such social issues, now as you and most of you know, i'm only 23(almost 24) so i don't have as much worldly knowledge, and i am ignorant on a lot of "Legalities" and Laws etc

i believe the sensitivity comes from a place of being put there, many of us have faced abuse be it verbal or physical, now it's not just Gays, people get bullied all the time, people come at people for various reasons, i don't want to pretend that we(gays) are the only victims, but that is not to lessen the abuse we have faced... to go back into the LGBT herstory is full of it.

but it also seems that people come at us with Hate with a purpose of degrading us and belittling us as a sub-human third class citizen

that being said, if you notice i don't use the "Homophobic" or "Bigot" card much if at all, understandably words are just words, meaningless without intent or context

you can call me a fag, the original definition may be a cigarette, but it's the hate and intent behind that word that causes the reaction

a reply to: charles1952

Yes, i always try to come from a place of love, i'm all about "Everybody Say Love" i'm about educating and tolerance and equality.

that being said it seems as if so many people have already made up their minds, either they are for Civil rights, or against it, not many people care to learn, even within this site on various Gay Topics, many of the Gay members say its not a choice, others come back with they believe it is, prove it's not, there is no proof there is etc.

Hate and intolerance is taught

Have you seen "The Normal Heart"?

originally posted by: smithjustinb

fag 2 (fæɡ)

— n
1. ( Brit ) a slang word for cigarette

dictionary.reference.com...

Sometimes you hear people (usually British people) say they want to "suck a fag". Nothing derogatory or obscene about that. They're just saying they, "want to go smoke a cigarette."

I'm British and I've never heard anyone say that want to 'suck' a fag.

I've heard people say "can I bum a fag?"
I was in a bar in Dallas once and my English mate said it to me. He got some funny looks! :-)

originally posted by: OpenEars123

originally posted by: smithjustinb

fag 2 (fæɡ)

— n
1. ( Brit ) a slang word for cigarette

dictionary.reference.com...

Sometimes you hear people (usually British people) say they want to "suck a fag". Nothing derogatory or obscene about that. They're just saying they, "want to go smoke a cigarette."

I'm British and I've never heard anyone say that want to 'suck' a fag.

I've heard people say "can I bum a fag?"
I was in a bar in Dallas once and my English mate said it to me. He got some funny looks! :-)

lol.

I've heard people say it in America. Despite "fag", as in "cigarette", being British slang.

a reply to: charles1952

Dear Charles,

What does your re-education plan prove?

Should we now call homophobia homo hating? What about fag fear?

A rose is still a rose by any other name my friend

As for the hijack of tbe word gay; English is a living language. Words evolve all the time. Gay, homo, faggot, queer are all words that have alternative meanings. What about straight? No one complained about the change of meaning for that word into heterosexual innuendo ever.

We need terms for these phenomena. Call it what you want, but the meaning will remain constant.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Pinke
How do I forgive the Gay movement for taking the word? They don't want to be forgiven, they will continue keeping it to themselves, a need for forgiveness never enters their minds.

Gay people don't generally apologize for being gay. Shocking isn't it? Many religions and philosophies allow forgiving without telling though. It's kind of like I don't hold it against my Catholic friends for setting my great great great great great great grandmother on fire. (Think I got that right)

A dialogue to prove people wrong about what?

Well you're having a dialogue now. You tell me what it's about. What do you want Pinke to actually do? (No dancing)

I find it difficult to believe its to set up a lesbian NRA charity.

I assume I should start calling Straights "Normal." And those who have a fear of "Normal" should , naturally, be called "Perverts."

If that is what you want to express to me, go crazy. No one is stopping you from attempting to enforce normative behaviours. I'll tell you that you're being intellectually obtuse and get on with my life.

What do you think 'straight' means anyway? Think about it.

I'm trying to show you, and everyone else that words matter, and some of the words appropriated by the Gay movement have caused hurt and division.

Without interior decorating stereotypes or discussions on the last Xena Warrior Princess float, can you say anything positive about the gay movement? Serious question.

I'm actually "Raising Public Awareness" and demanding my human rights. (Does that show you how it sounds to the other side?)

Not particularly. No one has taken away your right to decide what words mean.

I've been told that Gays have been everywhere for thousands of years. Are you trying to tell me that in all those ages, no gay has come up with a word for their relationships and beliefs until the middle of the 20th Century?

Either I'm missing something, or you need to revisit the origin of the word:

The use of gay to mean "homosexual" was in origin merely an extension of the word's sexualised connotation of "carefree and uninhibited", which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores.

Wikipedia Link.

Like most words revolving around that subject, it appears it originates from stereotype and moral judgement rather than reference to a relationship. I'm at a loss how you can imagine gay people taking ownership and enforcing the use of a word around the 17th century. Pretty sure 17th century western culture didn't have rainbow orgs.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: charles1952
Should we now call homophobia homo hating? What about fag fear?

I have bolded my vote.

I'm a big fan of alliteration.

Define phobia:

an extremely strong DISLIKE or fear of someone or something

INTOLERANCE or aversion for

Merriam Webster

a reply to: markosity1973

Dear markosity1973,

Thank you, that was an especially significant post. The basis for your question was floating around in my head, but I never quite formulated it, so I let it go.

I'm not sure that my re-education plan "proves" anything, it's just a means to start thinking about how to get to where we want to be. (How's that for fuzzy?) Or, how do we stop sending so much hate to each other?

Should we now call homophobia homo hating? What about fag fear?
....
We need terms for these phenomena. Call it what you want, but the meaning will remain constant.
A rose is still a rose by any other name my friend

That's the question I hadn't quite formulated. Hmmm, we need some kind of negative, ugly term to describe the hatred one group has for the other. It should be relevant to the Western world.

This is tough. Why don't we use the term that is applied to women who hate men, or Blacks who hate Whites, or Muslims who hate Christians, or Gays who hate Straights, or Atheists who hate Christians?

If the groups were reversed, we could use "Sexist," "Racist," "Xenophobes," "Homophobe," or other terms. What do we use when it's the other way around? I hope you can think of some that are widely used in the national discussion, I can't. It seems like "Approved" name calling goes only one way. That's no way to encourage discussion.

Certainly, words evolve. But this wasn't evolution. The word changed meanings in the '60s. (The "carefree" usage was still pretty much the only common one in the '40s.) My opinion (only) on the reason for the change? Gays didn't want to use any of the other common names for themselves, so they went word-shopping. They settled on gay because some of the connotations of the word (including licentious) lent themselves to a sexual usage. (They're still word-shopping, by the way. You can find arguments among (whomever) that the "L" in "LGBT" has to come first because of women's oppression, "Queer" is still a favorite in some areas, and "Homosexual" is frowned on by many as too clinical, (not cuddly enough?). I'm sure there are a dozen more I'm not aware of.

Besides, if evolution actually was the way words should be developed, it's noteworthy that the BBC (and probably every other Western media outlet) is strongly opposed to the use of the word "gay" in the sense of "That's so gay." Evolution, in this case, is being stopped because a group doesn't like the possible results.

What about straight? No one complained about the change of meaning for that word into heterosexual innuendo ever.

"Straight" had been used for a very long time to indicate "strict," "moral," "upright," and "honest." There's no "innuendo" involved.

"I'm being straight with you."

"On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."
(That oath is about a hundred years old.)

Regardless, you did me a favor by bringing that up. Thanks a lot.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: Pinke

Dear Pinke,

You can be my alliteration angel, my princess of poetry, my countess of conversation, the language lady, the ... "STOP! Stop it right now Charles, you're a goofy guy, a very wierd writer ... AHHGGGGG! Now you've got me doing it! (Slaps himself.) OK, get back to work."

I'm better now.

Gay people don't generally apologize for being gay.

Good! I don't want them to, and never did. The terrible sin demanding penance is the mauling of the word "gay."

Well you're having a dialogue now. You tell me what it's about. What do you want Pinke to actually do? (No dancing)

Awwww, that's too bad. I've been told that my dancing is well above average.

I want you (and other posters, myself included) to take the lead in discouraging the use of insulting words which tend to inflame angry passions in this discussion. I want people to keep in mind (as long as they can, anyway) that the people they are talking to are not psychiatric cases, they are people with beliefs, attitudes and opinions. Some of those beliefs might be harmful or wrong (as are some of the beliefs which we all hold), but they are still people. In the immortal words of Red Green, "We're all in this together."

I want you (and others) to explore the possibility of being with groups that have traditionally disagreed with you. It will be delicate, but make contact with a group which is not typically a supporter. Try, diplomatically, to join them in working on even one of their charitable projects. Show up without a lot of fanfare and drama, and work, side by side, on one project. I had not thought of that before, but I am in a position to try to bring in Atheists and Gays to some projects run by a Catholic organization. And I will so try.

I assume I should start calling Straights "Normal." And those who have a fear of "Normal" should , naturally, be called "Perverts."

If that is what you want to express to me, go crazy. No one is stopping you from attempting to enforce normative behaviours. I'll tell you that you're being intellectually obtuse and get on with my life.

Oh, my goodness. I must really be misunderstanding you. First, I don't understand the connection between "expressing" and "enforcing." I'm trying to point out the ugly results of using such words. Would Westboro Baptist be in the spot they're in, even legally, if their signs simply read "God hates sin?"

Is the Brandon Eich case (and several others), not an example of some Gays and their supporters attempting to seriously punish people, not even for their comments, but simply throwing a few bucks in to a political campaign of which they did not support? Isn't this an attempt to stop (by example) other people from doing or saying things opposed by that group of Gays?

I'm actually "Raising Public Awareness" and demanding my human rights. (Does that show you how it sounds to the other side?)

Not particularly. No one has taken away your right to decide what words mean.

Narrowly, and in most legal situations, you're correct. I'm not saying that. The problem comes about from expressing it. If I were to decide that N----r meant "happy fellow," and went into a Detroit bar calling everybody that, I would be killed. Remember the real world. I may have the right to publicly say (well, bad things) about Gays, and publicly fund groups opposing them, but I would have to be prepared to lose my job, have my house and business picketed and vandalized, be lied about on the Internet, and more. Wouldn't a Gay couple say that their right to get married had been taken away if those punishments were imposed on newly married Gay couples?

Either I'm missing something, or you need to revisit the origin of the word:

The use of gay to mean "homosexual" was in origin merely an extension of the word's sexualised connotation of "carefree and uninhibited", which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores.

Like most words revolving around that subject, it appears it originates from stereotype and moral judgement rather than reference to a relationship. I'm at a loss how you can imagine gay people taking ownership and enforcing the use of a word around the 17th century. Pretty sure 17th century western culture didn't have rainbow orgs.

This time, I think you've missed something, in this case, my meaning. Sorry for not being clearer.

Gays have had their relationships forever. They've also known, that in many, many cases, their relationships have been different from the ones common in society. If they were human at all, they came up with a word or phrase to identify themselves and their interests. I don't believe that they went around saying "I really like Publius, he really likes me. We spend a lot of time together." "So, why aren't you living together? (nudge, nudge)" "His orientation is toward people who are female biologically and identify their gender as female." No. I don't believe it, and I never will. They said something like, "We can't live together, he's (whatever they called Gays then)"

(Please refer to my explanation to markosity1973, above.)

Whatever words they used, they were known, they were written down in poetry and plays, etc. "Gay" is relatively brand new.

But, finally, your serious question. I'll do the best I can, but it will still sound like I'm avoiding it. There are many different groups under the banner of "Pansexualism." (Don't get me started.) Their identities and goals are different. If there are any common goals, they're necessarily vague. Things like, "Equal rights" and "Acceptance." I'm not saying they're bad goals, just vague. (This is not my main point, let's not argue it, please.) For people opposed to the "Gay Movement," the goal is "No matter what we do, we want people to treat us (and think) like it's all normal and approved, and to vote to give us all the benefits that people who behave differently get."

What have they done that I approve of, that is positive? Parts of the movement spent some time trying to stop risky sexual behaviors. Some emotional support has been offered to those suffering who are Gay. There has been some effort to reconcile families in which a member is Gay. Is that an answer? If not, I'll try again.

With respect,
Charles1952

Still reading all the posts, but I'm happy with "gay".
I have read that contrary to popular beliefs the word wasn't just coined because it meant "happy" (although that was a part of the reasoning), but a form of the word like "gai" had been used in older regional slang to refer to homosexuality.

Otherwise I don't really care what people call me.
They can call me a "pervert", because in a Freudian sense a perversion is anything that causes sexual arousal outside sex for procreation.
So if I'm a pervert, then most people are perverts, because few of them in Western culture just have sex to make babies.

Some think it will upset me on social media when they say GAY stands for Got AIDS Yet?
Yeah, I'm HIV-positive, and I think the gay community in many countries could do much more to reduce infections.
Although, in South Africa, with its massive and tragic heterosexual pandemic, that argument seems ignorant and emotionally dead.

I currently feel that my male gender and white minority race are bigger issues regarding discrimination than being gay in my country.
Lesbophobia, especially the "corrective rapes" of lesbian women (supposedly in an attempt to make them "straight") is a big problem in South Africa.

I have noticed that a lot of other issues have become attached to the gay identity, and it increasingly seems like a non-uniform movement.
Since state homophobia is less of an issue there are issues of race, class, gender (misogyny and misandry), biphobia/biopia, lesbophobia and transphobia.
"LGBTI" places a focus on inclusivity (at least when compared to heterosexist exclusivity), but one wonders how long this can hold without a clearly defined common cause.
I sometimes wonder whether the classic "gay male" (who is actually attracted to men) wasn't just a means to an end, and with a new bisexual revolution, I feel that just being "gay" is almost reactionary these days.
But hey, that's what I've always been, and i can't change to "bisexual" if it's not true just to please the Marxists and social constructionists (some of whom would like class and gender to disappear entirely).