• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Regarding our previous post about use of the word, "gay"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Merkat

Banned
Dec 22, 2000
121
0
0


<< Merkat -- No, I'm not gay. I used to be a pro musician, and now I design professional audio equipment. Much of my work is around the entertainment business, so I know a number of gay people. If you have no tolerance for it, you don't stand a chance of staying in business. I have known a number of gay people for whom I have considerable respect, and some have been good friends.

One more thing -- If you're thinking of getting in my face about it, you're probably picking on the wrong guy.
>>



As your post suggests....... a persons beliefs are determined by their goals.
 

TripleJ

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2001
2,667
0
0
I just hope everybody else on here sees this so they understand that gay should not be used in vain. It should be used just like the word straight is. Good on ya mods.
 

Capn

Platinum Member
Jun 27, 2000
2,716
0
0
So instead of a straight line, I could call it a gay line? Is that what you mean? You can't change the meaning of words just because you want to.
 

rc5

Platinum Member
Oct 13, 1999
2,464
1
0
Geez. Maybe you guys take that too serious...

For me, the word &quot;gay&quot; was used to express something unusual or abnormal. If I refer you something, like my broken CDRW, as &quot;gay&quot;, that means it behaves quite different with general CDRW. It's not necessary offensive.

Why must you guys feel ashame when you are referred as gay(homosexual)? The word of &quot;queer&quot; and &quot;lovely human&quot; may be offensive. But the word &quot;gay&quot; has been generally used by both gays and lesbians to themselve for hundreds of years and shouldn't be considered as offense..

If you are female, will you feel offended by calling &quot;woman&quot;?
If you are black, will you get offended by calling &quot;black&quot;?
and so on.

Anyway, 80%-90% of people on this planet aren't homosexual. If someday, 70-80% people are homosexual, I will use the word of &quot;non-gay&quot; to express something abnormal. :)

Get my point?
 

rc5

Platinum Member
Oct 13, 1999
2,464
1
0
I just took out my dictionary and looked for the meaning of the words &quot;gay&quot;, &quot;queer&quot;, &quot;lovely human&quot;.

Noun: gay:
1. Someone who practives homosexuality; having a sexual attracton to persons of the same sex.

Adjective: gay
1. Bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer
2. Full of or showing high-spirited merriment
3. Given to social pleasures often including dissipation
4. Brightly colored and showy
5. Offerng fun and gaiety
6. Homosexual or arousing homosexual desires.


Noun: lovely human
1. A disparaging term for an openly homosexual man
2. A bundle of sticks and branches bound together

Noun: queer
1. A disparaging term for an openly homosexual man.

See. The word of &quot;gay&quot; can hardly be treated as offense

While the words &quot;lovely human&quot; and &quot;queer&quot; are indeed offensive.

I won't mind if you start a fist-fight with someone referring you with the last two words. :)
 

Capn

Platinum Member
Jun 27, 2000
2,716
0
0
queer isn't just a derogatory for homosexual either, if that's all your dictionary listed I'd suggest you get a better dictionary.

queer (kw&icirc;r)
adj. queer·er, queer·est.

Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
Slang. Fake; counterfeit.
Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
Offensive. Slang Gay; homosexual.
 

rc5

Platinum Member
Oct 13, 1999
2,464
1
0
hi, cpan. The meaning of word can change:

I checked with one online dictionary:

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=queer

queer (kw&icirc;r)
adj. queer·er, queer·est.

Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
Slang. Fake; counterfeit.
Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
Offensive. Slang Gay; homosexual.
n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a gay or homosexual person.


As least somewhere in this country, the word &quot;queer&quot; is offensive.
 

Capn

Platinum Member
Jun 27, 2000
2,716
0
0
I didn't mean to say it couldn't be used in an offensive manner. Anything can be used offensively if the effort is made.

Anyways, I hate arguing about semantics. :)
 

Netopia

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,793
4
81
Mods,

As I stated originally and will restate, my offense at the situation wasn't with the word in question but was with the issue of censorship and heavy handedness. I salute you for listening to the outcry of the most active members on the board and considering our feelings in this matter. It took courage to rethink and restate and I for one appreciate it. I also appreciate your removal of SuperSix's ban.

Harvey,

Good to see you back! Your wit and intellect are sorely missed around here... at least by me!

That said... as usual, you and I differ. Merkat's point about communism is valid.... at least in the US where we have a choice of political parties. I know that you believe that homosexuality is not a chioce, but as posted last night, the latest gallop poll shows more people believe that it is in fact a choice and not a genetic trait like skin color. That being the case, it is not unfair to equate negative speech about one &quot;choice&quot; with negative speech about another &quot;choice&quot;. Discipline must be handed out equally or it is no good.

Another thing Harvey, although it was long ago, I may still have the threads from WAY back where you called me all sorts of things based on my staunch religious beliefs about evangelizing and salvation. If it is wrong to name call one group of people, isn't just as wrong to do it to another?

The following is lifted from a web report:


The Alan Guttmacher Institute (a think-tank related to Planned Parenthood) found that 2.3% of &quot;sexually active men aged 20-39 have had same-gender activity during the last 10 years,&quot; with only 1.1 percent reporting exclusive homosexual contact. A University of Chicago study found that while 4.9% to 5.6% of survey participants had participated in an act with a same-sex partner, only .6% to .7% were exclusively homosexual. Another study in Science magazine reported that 1.6 to 2% had engaged in homosexual activity in the last year. This is reflected in the 2-3% figure from the U.S. Census Bureau National Center for Health Statistics which is based on actions, rather than feeling or thoughts.

The following is also lifted from the web:


In their book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, (Lochinvar-Huntington House pub., 1990) Reisman and Eichel point out that Kinsey's data base was clearly skewed by his choice to include a high percentage of prison inmates and known sex offenders. (Convicted criminals comprised a full 25% of Kinsey's male sample, though they made up less than 1% of the total U.S. population.) Both practice homosexual behavior much more frequently than individuals in the general population.

Tom W. Smith's much more recent study, Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Numbers of Partners, Frequency and Risk, conducted among a full probability sample of the adult U.S. household population, reported that &quot;Overall... less than 1% [of the study population] has been exclusively homosexual.&quot;

Jeffrey Vitale, President of Overlooked Opinions (op. cit.), which &quot;is compiling the results of an ongoing national survey of a panel of about 20,000 homosexuals&quot; estimates that &quot;even in California and New York, two well-known [gay] havens, the gay population is less than 8 percent&quot; (American Marketplace, &quot;Gay Community Looks for Strength in `Numbers,'&quot; Vol. 12, No. 14, July 4, 1991, p. 131).

Recent national surveys of about 10,000 subjects conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report less than 3% of men as saying they have had sex with another man &quot;at some time since 1977, even one time (&quot;AIDS Knowledge and Attitudes for January-March, 1990, Provisional Data From the National Health Interview Survey,&quot; Deborah Dawson; Joseph E. Fitti and Marcie Cynamon, op. cit. for April-June, 1990; Pamela F. Adams and Ann M. Hardy, op. cit. for July-September, 1990, in Advance Data, #s 193,195,198, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, p. 11 in all three documents).

The September 2, 1992, Dallas Morning Times (pg. 4C) reported on a &quot;University of Chicago study aimed to be the most significant study [on American sexuality] since Mr. Kinsey's&quot; and a related study by the National Opinion Research Center. The findings:


&quot;...An estimated 3 percent of the population claimed at least one act of homosexual sex during 1991. Over the respondents' lifetime, 4.5 percent claim some such sex... The final conclusions from the University of Chicago's study may confirm a figure far lower than Mr. Kinsey's. They may also show that American sexual behavior is quite conservative. The mean number of sexual partners over an individual's lifetime is probably around six or seven&quot; (&quot;Study of U.S. sex habits may contain surprises&quot;).
Science magazine, July 3, 1992, reports a very recent French study that found only 4.1% of men and 2.6% of women said they'd had homosexual intercourse at least once in their lives. Only 1.1% of men and 0.3% of women said they'd had homosexual intercourse in the past 12 months (as reported in &quot;Homosexual figures grossly exaggerated,&quot; AFA Journal, September, 1992, pg. 9).
&quot;The London Daily Mail released last week what it calls `the most exhaustive survey ever conducted into British sexual habits.' The most stunning finding was that only 1.1 percent of British men said they were active homosexuals, a figure similar to the most recent American polls&quot; (World magazine, Jan. 29, 1994, p. 9).


My point isn't that we should demean or be hostile to anyone at all, but just that if we are going to try to use statistics to base our claims we should at least be sure of what those statistics are saying. In this case, the latest compilations seem to indicate that the homosexual population is at most one half of what it is claimed to be... and that in probability it is much lower than that.

As to the right and wrong of homosexuality... this isn't the thread for that discussion and we shouldn't get into those issues here.

Joe
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,273
103
106
Excellent post Netopia. We disagree on a lot of things, but I appreciate people who can post their opinion intelligently - even in those cases where I might disagree with them.

Thanks for the clarification and the change of policy Mods.

<<((and yes i am telling you that your opinon is WRONG if you believe being gay is a bad thing)) >>

.... posts like these, and yet eakers would call herself &quot;tolerant&quot;. In other words, tolerance, to her, means you agree with her liberal views, or you are wrong and your opinion should not be allowed to be voiced. I've seen quite a few moronic posts from eakers in the past, this latest one simply continues that pattern.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Net -- Howdy back atcha. :)

That said... as usual, you and I differ. Merkat's point about communism is meaningless blather. If he meant to say totalitarian, that's what he should have said. Many forms of government and economic systems can be totalitarian in nature, even some supposed (in name) democracies. Until multiple parties were finally allowed, this was true in Taiwan and Indonesia, just to name a couple. Now that the formerely ruling party in Indonesia is out, they still have their problems. I could go on and on with examples, but if you want to make a serious point, word choice does make a difference. Communism (with a capital or lower case C) is not relevant to this discussion.

But then, I guess I shouldn't be anti-semantic. ;)

Regarding the rest of your statistics -- That's all they are, statistics. They do not deal with the more important issue, real individual gay human beings and the right of each to be judged on his/her/ individual merit. Their sexual preferences are not mine, but I don't feel any need to be judgmental of their choices. As long as they don't agress on my body, it's really their business.

I know you believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe being judgmental about the private sexual conduct of consenting adults is a sin of arrogance. It's just not anyone else's business.

Ah, yes. Those thrilling threads of yesteryear. If I recall correctly, at the time, you were on a thundering preach, save and conversion trip, ala the legendary Rextroll. I was as intolerant of that as you were of anyone who dared to protest the possibility of an alternative truth. My view was, and remains, that in the perspective of an open forum centered on computers, good people can have different philosophical truths, and mutual respect requires tolerance for the beliefs of others. You and I reached that a long time ago. :)
 

Netopia

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,793
4
81


<< But then, I guess I shouldn't be anti-semantic. >>



I do rather enjoy your sense of punistry! (hey.. I think I just invented a word!)

As for the homosexual issue, as I said in my post, I provided statistics only... no judgement on the actual issue, as that should be in some other thread.

As for your view of these things being a private matter, I agree. I just wish that they would remain private and not brought into the public arena. So... we sort of agree, but even on this issue we are looking at different angles.

Hmmm.... common ground.... oh yeah!

Analog RULES! ;)

Joe
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Using the word &quot;gay&quot; as a derogatory term sounds stupid, and makes the one using it look stupid. Apparently we have some who don't mind looking stupid.

Russ, NCNE
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0


<< Using the word &quot;gay&quot; as a derogatory term sounds stupid, and makes the one using it look stupid. Apparently we have some who don't mind looking stupid. >>



I wholeheartedly agree.

Fortunately for many members here, the moderators decided to maintain their position that being stupid is not a bannable offense. ;)
 

Emulex

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2001
9,759
1
71
Although derogatory to some, the term &quot;gay&quot; has been realigned in youth today.

&quot;Dude that honda looks gay&quot;..

I think many folks align &quot;gay&quot; with &quot;lame&quot;..

I think taken into context properly it has many meanings..
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
Hmmm - I've always just used posts where someone calls something &quot;gay&quot; in a derogatory fashion as a good benchmark to let me know that person's lack of intelligence.

Gay = Happy
and/or
Gay = Homosexual
but
Gay != &quot;lame, stupid, etc...&quot;
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Emulex -- << I think many folks align &quot;gay&quot; with &quot;lame&quot;. >>

Why did you have to rush in to prove Russ and Rio right? It's only going to give them swelled heads. :Q

If you really thought for one second, you would realize that when &quot;many folks (i.e. you) align 'gay' with 'lame',&quot; that is exactly the problem. You are using is a term already associated with a specific group of people to mean something negative in an entirely other context.

Thoughtless words can hurt others. Is that your intention? If not, try really thinking about it. :)
 

NateSLC

Senior member
Feb 28, 2001
943
0
0
Harvey,



<< Do you have some substantiation of your estimate? Links or other documentation to prove your statement would be helpful if you expect credibility. Or are you just posting your own wishful thinking? >>



Wishful thinking? No. 10% is an estimate that was made a long time ago. I don't have time to do any web research at the moment but will gladly oblige when I get home. 10% is the common knowledge number in the gay community. 10% Productions is a gay company that took it's name from this figure. I'm sure you can find the info on your own if you need to know before I can look for links.

Nate

[Edit}



<< My point isn't that we should demean or be hostile to anyone at all, but just that if we are going to try to use statistics to base our claims we should at least be sure of what those statistics are saying. In this case, the latest compilations seem to indicate that the homosexual population is at most one half of what it is claimed to be... and that in probability it is much lower than that >>



Good find. Yes, it does seem to be about half of the 10% figure... But you must consider there is a high instance of denial here to be accounted for. Also, I know people who haven't come out to anyone until they were in their 50s and 60s.

There are people not being counted.

Nate
 

Azraele

Elite Member
Nov 5, 2000
16,515
21
81
<<the moderators decided to maintain their position that being stupid is not a bannable offense>>

Lol. I think everyone has their moments of stupidity. Goodness knows I've had some doozies. :eek::Q
 

maxcom

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2000
7,650
1
0
how about this one I sent 3 emails to the mods with zero response

edit. My worst fear happed to someone... S hit
edit Ulfwald. you say you did get credit from your bank?
Yes I said edit.. and if you offended. I dont give a dam. Like I care what you think is offensive. Get a real life.


while we're cleaning house , let's use the whole mop and make this a forum for all to enjoy.....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY