DISQUS

hartporter · 1 year ago

I don't agree with any of this. "Gay" was not chosen as an alternative to "homosexual," which no one has ever found offensive, but to "queer," which was massively offensive. In the nineties, morons in the gay movement decided it would take the sting out of "queer" if we started using it ourselves. All that achieved was to drive a wedge between the gay generations, and make "gay," a word we fought so hard for, a term of ridicule. Now you want to do the same thing to "homosexual?" What's going to be left to call us? For people of my generation, "queer" is as offensive as ever, "gay" has become and embarrasment, and now you are deciding only right-wing haters can use "homosexuals."

Here's an idea: why don't you stop fucking with the language altogether, since every change you make turns out to be for the worse?

kevinbgoode · 1 year ago

The editorial is about marriage. Marriage is about more than sex. Homosexual is a clinical term expressly referenced to sexual orientation only, rather than the complexities in the relationships of marriage. Wedding announcements in newspapers do not say "heterosexual unions" and newspapers do not regularly identify straight people and their relationships exclusively by their sexual orientation.

So here's an idea. Why don't you stop fucking around with supporting the American Family Association and all of the other cabal of wingnut organizations who have declared that "homosexuals" are mentally deficient.
It is improper to use the term "homosexual" unless a story is exclusively about sexual activity. Marriage is not exclusively about sexuality.

I've never known the term "gay" to be an embarassment, but find the sole descriptive use of my being as "homosexual" to be highly offensive. I have a relationship orientation, too and a mind and body that is used for much more than just some sexual act.