Now liberals have declared war on the word "homosexual"

[JoeB131]

.

We can always count on the PC Police to try to manipulate the language to put their targets on the defensive.

No more of that shit.

.

I'm sure you can use all the slurs you want with your friends.

You just can't do it in polite company.

I can kind of see why this word needs to go. It implies the only thing these gays do is have sex, as though that defines them as a person. It's obsolete. Just like "Cripple" or "Negro". It's a reductionist word.

Being pro-gay rights, I've always been happy to just type "gay".

Now I have to type more, and use "pro-homosexual" rights.

Ugh.

You narcissists can be pests.

.

I think when your 'homosexual' friends tell you that homosexual is offensive, you should probably stop using it.

Just saying.

 

[Theowl32]

Perhaps we can just use the term....."stick in the mud."

 

[Theowl32]

.

We can always count on the PC Police to try to manipulate the language to put their targets on the defensive.

No more of that shit.

.

I'm sure you can use all the slurs you want with your friends.

You just can't do it in polite company.

I can kind of see why this word needs to go. It implies the only thing these gays do is have sex, as though that defines them as a person. It's obsolete. Just like "Cripple" or "Negro". It's a reductionist word.

You can see why the word homosexual needs to go?

You are such a schmuck.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You can see why the word homosexual needs to go?

You are such a schmuck.

I'm sorry you don't understand the point I was trying to make.

I can't say i'm surprised.

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN
liberals are morons and losers that come up with stupid shit to make themselves feel relevant

 

[Esmeralda]

You are no longer allowed to use it. Because liberals ban words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html

You have incredible criical thinking skills, incredibly poor ones. One person writes an opinion piece for the NY Times and that means all liberals want to ban the word homosexual. That person doesn't speak for me, and he doesn't speak for millions of other liberals. He is one person voicing one person's opinion.

 

[Mac1958]

You are no longer allowed to use it. Because liberals ban words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html

You have incredible criical thinking skills, incredibly poor ones. One person writes an opinion piece for the NY Times and that means all liberals want to ban the word homosexual. That person doesn't speak for me, and he doesn't speak for millions of other liberals. He is one person voicing one person's opinion.

JoeB is all for it.

I wonder if we'll see you two debating that.

Just kidding, I know we won't.

.

 

[Theowl32]

You are no longer allowed to use it. Because liberals ban words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html

You have incredible criical thinking skills, incredibly poor ones. One person writes an opinion piece for the NY Times and that means all liberals want to ban the word homosexual. That person doesn't speak for me, and he doesn't speak for millions of other liberals. He is one person voicing one person's opinion.

Yeah, cause liberals never get ridiculous with their politically correct shit.

Take a look at JoeB. He seems to agree with it.

 

[JoeB131]

You are no longer allowed to use it. Because liberals ban words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html

You have incredible criical thinking skills, incredibly poor ones. One person writes an opinion piece for the NY Times and that means all liberals want to ban the word homosexual. That person doesn't speak for me, and he doesn't speak for millions of other liberals. He is one person voicing one person's opinion.

JoeB is all for it.

I wonder if we'll see you two debating that.

Just kidding, I know we won't.

.

Why should that be a matter of "debate".

She said that all liberals don't agree with this writer. I'd probably agree. Not all liberals would.

Not a liberal myself, just someone who really dislikes how the crazies have taken over the republican party.

What amazes me is that we are still even fighting over this, like the right has lost this fight, but they are still clinging to the last few inches of ledge.

"What, they can get married now? Well, can I still call them 'homosexuals'? ANd I don't want to bake a cake for them. I swear, I would just die if I had to put two little plastic dudes on top of a cake!!!"

 

[novasteve]

Iow can you be such a ******* ***** a word hurts you?

 

[Esmeralda]

You are no longer allowed to use it. Because liberals ban words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html

You have incredible criical thinking skills, incredibly poor ones. One person writes an opinion piece for the NY Times and that means all liberals want to ban the word homosexual. That person doesn't speak for me, and he doesn't speak for millions of other liberals. He is one person voicing one person's opinion.

JoeB is all for it.

I wonder if we'll see you two debating that.

Just kidding, I know we won't.

.

The word homosexual is no different than the word heterosexual. They are gender definitions, nothing more or less. I wouldn't use the word homosexual to describe anyone any more than I would use the word heterosexual to describe anyone, to address anyone, etc. If the issue arose, I'd say gay or straight. It isn't an issue. I don't use the term homosexual with my gay friends, as Joe suggests. If the subject of gender comes up, we say gay or straight. Done. Finished, no issue. Homosexual and heterosexual are formal terms used for specific formal purposes.

 

[JoeB131]

Iow can you be such a ******* ***** a word hurts you?

It's not a matter of a word hurting you, it's a matter of a word not being accurate in its definition.

For instance, we don't use the word "Retarded" to describe mentally disabled people. We also no longer refer to those suffering from Down Syndrome as "Mongloids"

Both of these words were considered clinically accurate, at one time. Now, not so much.

 

[Theowl32]

You have incredible criical thinking skills, incredibly poor ones. One person writes an opinion piece for the NY Times and that means all liberals want to ban the word homosexual. That person doesn't speak for me, and he doesn't speak for millions of other liberals. He is one person voicing one person's opinion.

JoeB is all for it.

I wonder if we'll see you two debating that.

Just kidding, I know we won't.

.

The word homosexual is no different than the word heterosexual. They are gender definitions, nothing more or less. I wouldn't use the word homosexual to describe anyone anymore than I would use the word heterosexual to describe anyone, to to address anyone, etc. If the issue arose, I'd say gay or straight. It isn't an issue. I don't use the term homosexual with my gay friends, as Joe suggests. If the issue of gender comes up, we say gay or straight. Done. Finished, no issue. Homosexual and heterosexual are formal terms used for specific formal purposes.

Can someone decipher this liberal double talk? Is she agreeing with JoeB that the term homosexual should not be used? While at the same time she is saying it is not a big deal?

Is she, in her typical liberal way, taking on both sides of the issue?

She on one hand said she would NOT USE homosexual to describe anyone? Is there a particular reason why she WOULD NOT USE that term? Is it an offensive adjective? I guess so. Also, the terms are not GENDER DEFINITIONS. A heteroexual or homosexual can be male or female.

She also some how seemed to agree with JoeB.....I think. She reiterated that she DOES NOT use the term homosexual......as "JoeB suggests."

In her last statement she then says heterosexual and homosexual are formal terms, and there is no issue.

Is she telling that to JoeB, who is offended by the "formal term?"

Please someone tell me what that gobbly gook is all about.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB is all for it.

I wonder if we'll see you two debating that.

Just kidding, I know we won't.

.

The word homosexual is no different than the word heterosexual. They are gender definitions, nothing more or less. I wouldn't use the word homosexual to describe anyone anymore than I would use the word heterosexual to describe anyone, to to address anyone, etc. If the issue arose, I'd say gay or straight. It isn't an issue. I don't use the term homosexual with my gay friends, as Joe suggests. If the issue of gender comes up, we say gay or straight. Done. Finished, no issue. Homosexual and heterosexual are formal terms used for specific formal purposes.

Can someone decipher this liberal double talk? Is he agreeing with JoeB that the term homosexual should not be used? While at the same time he is saying it is not a big deal?

Is he, in his typical liberal way, taking on both sides of the issue?

He on one hand said he would NOT USE homosexual to describe anyone? Is there a particular reason why he WOULD NOT USE that term? Is it an offensive adjective? I guess so. Also, the terms are not GENDER DEFINITIONS. A heteroexual or homosexual can be male or female.

He also some how seemed to agree with JoeB.....I think. He reiterated that he DOES NOT use the term homosexual......as "JoeB suggests."

In his last statement he then says heterosexual and homosexual are formal terms, and there is no issue.

Is he telling that to JoeB, who is offended by the "formal term?"

Please someone tell me what that gobbly gook is all about.

First, Esmerelda is a she...

Second, what she is saying is that homosexual is a technical term, not one you would use in casual conversation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The freaks on both sides are wrong.

From the letters to the editor today in the Salt Lake Trib

"Why is it thought that in the first case the reason is biological and innate, while in the other it would be frivolous social conditioning, angrily attributed to religion? // Truth is that what is true biologically of one would be equally true of the other. I can appreciate the frustration of those of same-sex attraction. Their stand on equal civil rights is constitutionally firm. // However, to dismiss the concerns of others over changing family values as little more than religious bigotry, when the real reason is more correctly separate gay and straight biological imperatives, is to seriously mischaracterize the issue."

 

[FJO]

They hijacked the word "gay" in a futile attempt to convince the world that they are oh so happy.

Now they are offended by the word "homosexual".

Don't they realize that "homo" means "man"?

Do they hate themselves?

I suppose they will demand the use of the word "homophobe" except when they want to insult somebody.

 

[FJO]

Iow can you be such a ******* ***** a word hurts you?

He was absent from kindergarten when they taught the jingle about sticks and stones.

 

[Fang]

You are no longer allowed to use it. Because liberals ban words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html

That's just stupid. It's like they are admitting what they do is not normal and offensive. I thought they were proud of what they do? If so then don't ban words that describe it.

 

[blastoff]

Queer...deviating from the normal or accepted: strange.

90-what percent of people are hetero? The others, those deviating from the normal or accepted then are what?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Well, I'm sure this will serve to increase animus between the two identity groups, to isolate them a bit more from each other, which is obviously one of the primary goals of the PC Police.

.