Why is the word "gay" sacred?

[drunkenshoe]

Sweet and creamy, eewww. And it makes me dizzy. 

[trdsf]

Context is king.  I do object if I hear 'gay' being used as a synonym for 'bad' or 'unpleasant', because it's simply not plausible in this culture that the user doesn't know the other meaning(s) -- especially since the usage of 'gay' as 'happy' has mostly fallen by the wayside over the last several years.

This doesn't mean that I immediately jump down the throat of a stranger on the street that I happened to overhear; that's not worth getting into.  I will address it with a co-worker, who might not know that I am gay.  It's happened, and they've understood how that can be considered an objectionable usage, even if they didn't mean it that way.

Put it in perspective: imagine trying to use "That's so black!" or "That's so Jewish!" in exactly the same way.

[Munch]

Context is king.  I do object if I hear 'gay' being used as a synonym for 'bad' or 'unpleasant', because it's simply not plausible in this culture that the user doesn't know the other meaning(s) -- especially since the usage of 'gay' as 'happy' has mostly fallen by the wayside over the last several years.

This doesn't mean that I immediately jump down the throat of a stranger on the street that I happened to overhear; that's not worth getting into.  I will address it with a co-worker, who might not know that I am gay.  It's happened, and they've understood how that can be considered an objectionable usage, even if they didn't mean it that way.

Put it in perspective: imagine trying to use "That's so black!" or "That's so Jewish!" in exactly the same way.

Thats pretty much my take on it every time I see someone using gay as a negative synonym when describing something they think as bad, and yet often when confronted on it they wonder why your getting aggressive with them, when it should just be a fact of the matter in modern 21st century society they should know that gay people are people, and its only because of being used as a negative synonym that they can't just accept that fact.

In a related story, but not really to do with the word gay, I was in my job putting away some stock, when one of the older shop floor members approached me, and asked my age. When I told her she said theres this nice girl around my age who works in this other department and suggested I meet up with her after work. When I told her I'm sure she's nice but I'm gay and have a boyfriend, she looked shocked, "YOUR GAY? How long you been gay for?".
Thankfully the other shop floor assistant was with me in correcting her saying "urm, since he was born?" I laughed it off, but made me really look at this whole thing in a last to current generation thing, and just thought of it really coming down to how you were raised and the way you live in current times.

[josephpalazzo]

Context is king.  I do object if I hear 'gay' being used as a synonym for 'bad' or 'unpleasant', because it's simply not plausible in this culture that the user doesn't know the other meaning(s) -- especially since the usage of 'gay' as 'happy' has mostly fallen by the wayside over the last several years.

This doesn't mean that I immediately jump down the throat of a stranger on the street that I happened to overhear; that's not worth getting into.  I will address it with a co-worker, who might not know that I am gay.  It's happened, and they've understood how that can be considered an objectionable usage, even if they didn't mean it that way.

Put it in perspective: imagine trying to use "That's so black!" or "That's so Jewish!" in exactly the same way.

Anyone can make a mistake - not knowing using a certain  word can be offensive to somebody else, but once the mistake has been pointed out to that person, and that person continues using the offensive word, then you know you're dealing with an asshole or a bigot, or both.

[Munch]

Anyone can make a mistake - not knowing using a certain  word can be offensive to somebody else, but once the mistake has been pointed out to that person, and that person continues using the offensive word, then you know you're dealing with an asshole or a bigot, or both.

pretty much. There is often a case of someone who just doesn't realize  it, and when it dawns on them they wake up to the fact "Oh, that might actually be offensive". Now don't get me wrong, like Stephen fry said, complaining about being offended is just a whine, its true, but theres always got to be a middle ground in these things.

[josephpalazzo]

pretty much. There is often a case of someone who just doesn't realize  it, and when it dawns on them they wake up to the fact "Oh, that might actually be offensive". Now don't get me wrong, like Stephen fry said, complaining about being offended is just a whine, its true, but theres always got to be a middle ground in these things.

Yes,about the whining. But I'm distinguishing between the incidents that took place in universities where people were asking for "safe space" - universities are THE place to tackle controversial topics - with incidents that are on a personal level. Were I to call a co-worker by a certain label X, and that person would tell me that it's offensive, it would only be decent on my part to stop that, even if I don't like the person.

[gentle_dissident]

One of the funniest posts I've seen online was after a Magic Block Party video. It was "White people." I make with the magic hands and am pretty damn white. However, I'm not this white.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjsrMOh8yFQ

[Baruch]

Appreciated the off-post magic video.  Life is magical, but some have more panache than others.

[facebook164]

I don't think the word gay is sacred. Celebrities try to tell us what words to use all the time, and it usually turns out to be a joke and fails. They tell us not to use gay, retard, nigga/er, bossy, etc, but most people don't take these requests seriously, other than the super sensitive SJWs. I really don't care if people get offended by what words I use. I will use gay to mean stupid. If Lebron James flops and still gets the call, I'm going to say "that's gay". There's nothing homophobic about using the word to mean stupid, and if someone wants to see homophobic intent when none is there, that is their problem. The same goes for retarded and other words like that. I really don't care if a woman with a disabled son at home hears me say the word and gets offended. That's her problem.

Keep doing that. Then your douchebaginess will ve obvious for dveryone.

[Jannabear]

I'm pansexual and transgender.
I don't really care if people use gay as a pejorative.

[drunkenshoe]

https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vYDGAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=social+forms+and+context&ots=zTkOworPki&sig=6l6SI38drPv7AU3XnvUnNiw0hHQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=social%20forms%20and%20context&f=false

George Simmel

Levels of concern[edit]
There are four basic levels of concern in Simmel’s work. First are his assumptions about the psychological workings of social life. Second is his interest in the sociological workings of interpersonal relationships. Third is his work on the structure of and changes in the social and cultural “spirit” of his times. He also adopted the principle of emergence, which is the idea that higher levels emerge from the lower levels. Finally, he dealt with his views in the nature and inevitable fate of humanity. His most microscopic work dealt with forms and the interaction that takes place with different types of people. The forms include subordination, superordination, exchange, conflict and sociability.[8]

Dialectical thinking[edit]
A dialectical approach is multicausal, multidirectional, integrates facts and value, rejects the idea that there are hard and fast dividing lines between social phenomena, focuses on social relations, looks not only at the present but also at the past and future, and is deeply concerned with both conflicts and contradictions. Simmel’s sociology was concerned with relationships especially interaction and was known as a “methodological relationist”. His principle was that everything interacts in some way with everything else. Overall he was mostly interested in dualisms, conflicts, and contradictions in whatever realm of the social world he happened to be working on.[8]

Individual consciousness[edit]
Simmel focused on forms of association and paid little attention to individual consciousness. Simmel believed in the creative consciousness and this belief can be found in diverse forms of interaction, the ability of actors to create social structures and the disastrous effects those structures had on the creativity of individuals. Simmel also believed that social and cultural structures come to have a life of their own.[8]

Sociability[edit]
Simmel refers to "all the forms of association by which a mere sum of separate individuals are made into a 'society,'"[9] which he describes as a, "higher unity,"[9] composed of individuals. He was especially fascinated, it seems, by the, "impulse to sociability in man,"[9] which he described as "associations...[through which] the solitariness of the individuals is resolved into togetherness, a union with others,"[10] a process he describes by which, "the impulse to sociability distils, as it were, out of the realities of social life the pure essence of association,"[10] and "through which a unity is made,"[10] which he also refers to as, "the free-playing, interacting interdependence of individuals."[10]

He defines sociability as, "the play-form of association,"[10] driven by, "amicability, breeding, cordiality and attractiveness of all kinds."[10] In order for this free association to occur, he says, "the personalities must not emphasize themselves too individually...with too much abandon and aggressiveness."[10] He also describes, "this world of sociability...a democracy of equals...without friction," so long as people blend together in a spirit of fun and affection to, "bring about among themselves a pure interaction free of any disturbing material accent."[11] As so many social interactions are not entirely of this sweet character, one has to conclude that Simmel is describing a somewhat idealised view of the best types of human interaction, and by no means the most typical or average type.

The same can be said of Simmel when he says that, "the vitality of real individuals, in their sensitivities and attractions, in the fullness of their impulses and convictions...is but a symbol of life, as it shows itself in the flow of a lightly amusing play,"[12] or when he adds: "a symbolic play, in whose aesthetic charm all the finest and most highly sublimated dynamics of social existence and its riches are gathered."[13] Again, one has to conclude that he is describing human interactions at their idealised best and not the more typical ones, which tend to fall a long way short of his descriptions.

Social geometry[edit]
Dyad and triad[edit]
A dyad is a two-person group; a triad is a three-person group. In a dyad a person is able to retain their individuality. There is no other person to shift the balance of the group thereby allowing those within the dyad to maintain their individuality. In the triad group there is a possibility of a dyad forming within the triad thereby threatening the remaining individual's independence and causing them to become the subordinate of the group. This seems to be an essential part of society which becomes a structure. Unfortunately as the group (structure) becomes increasingly greater the individual becomes separated and grows more alone, isolated and segmented. Simmel's view was somewhat ambiguous with respect to group size. On one hand he believed that the bigger the group the better for the individual. In a larger group it would be harder to exert control on individual, but on the other hand with a large group there is a possibility of the individual becoming distant and impersonal. Therefore, in an effort for the individual to cope with the larger group they must become a part of a smaller group such as the family.[8]

Distance[edit]
The value of something is determined by the distance from its actor. In "The Stranger", Simmel discusses how if a person is too close to the actor they are not considered a stranger, but if they are too far they would no longer be a part of a group. The particular distance from a group allows a person to have objective relationships with different group members.[8]

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo3622859.html#tab-content

"Of those who created the intellectual capital used to launch the enterprise of professional sociology, Georg Simmel was perhaps the most original and fecund. In search of a subject matter for sociology that would distinguish it from all other social sciences and humanistic disciplines, he charted a new field for discovery and proceeded to explore a world of novel topics in works that have guided and anticipated the thinking of generations of sociologists. Such distinctive concepts of contemporary sociology as social distance, marginality, urbanism as a way of life, role-playing, social behavior as exchange, conflict as an integrating process, dyadic encounter, circular interaction, reference groups as perspectives, and sociological ambivalence embody ideas which Simmel adumbrated more than six decades ago."â€"Donald N. Levine

Half of the material included in this edition of Simmel's writings represents new translations. This includes Simmel's important, lengthy, and previously untranslated "Group Expansion and Development of Individuality," as well as three selections from his most neglected work, Philosophy of Money; in addition, the introduction to Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie, chapter one of the Lebensanschauung, and three essays are translated for the first time.

Acknowledgments
Introduction by Donald N. Levine
I. Philosophy of the Social Sciences
1. How Is History Possible?
2. How Is Society Possible?
3. The Problem of Sociology
4. The Categories of Human Experience
II. Forms of Social Interaction
5. Exchange
6. Conflict
7. Domination
8. Prostitution
9. Sociability
III. Social Types
10. The Stranger
11. The Poor
12. The Miser and the Spendthrift
13. The Adventurer
14. The Nobility
IV. Forms of Individuality
15. Freedom and the Individual
16. Subjective Culture
17. Eros, Platonic and Modern
V. Individuality and Social Structure
18. Group Expansion and the Development of Individuality
19. Fashion
20. The Metropolis and Mental Life
21. Subordination and Personal Fulfillment
VI. Forms Versus Life Progress: The Dialectics of Change
22. Social Forms and Inner Needs
23. The Transcendent Character of Life
24. The Conflict in Modern Culture
Bibliographical Note

[widdershins]

Context is king.  I do object if I hear 'gay' being used as a synonym for 'bad' or 'unpleasant', because it's simply not plausible in this culture that the user doesn't know the other meaning(s) -- especially since the usage of 'gay' as 'happy' has mostly fallen by the wayside over the last several years.

This doesn't mean that I immediately jump down the throat of a stranger on the street that I happened to overhear; that's not worth getting into.  I will address it with a co-worker, who might not know that I am gay.  It's happened, and they've understood how that can be considered an objectionable usage, even if they didn't mean it that way.

Put it in perspective: imagine trying to use "That's so black!" or "That's so Jewish!" in exactly the same way.

There is a HUGE difference here.  When you say, "That's so gay" you are using an actual definition for the word independent of the definition addressing sexuality.  And while being gay certainly isn't a choice you make, it IS the way you're born, I still don't think a comparison to ethnicity is entirely fair or accurate.  To say, "He is so Jewish" in a negative way you are not using the word "Jewish" independent of ethnicity, but instead claiming that he is like a Jewish person.  Of course that's bad because you're stating that Jews are bad, he is a Jew, so he is bad.  You are actually referring to the alternate meaning of "Jewish" in that usage.

To say, "That's so black", I really don't know where to go with that one.  It is not a thing people say, so there is no way to determine the intention of someone saying that or how one would feel hearing it.  A better comparison would be "That is so lame", which is just about exactly the same situation as saying, "That is so gay" except people don't tend to find it offensive.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard Wanda Sykes use the word "lame" in that way, and the word "lame" actually does not have a legitimate definition meaning "stupid" as the word gay does, which suggests to me this is more a pet peeve than an actual problem.

No, it's not plausible that the user doesn't know the other meaning, the one of importance to gays, but does that really matter?  If they're using a word correctly, does it matter that it has other meanings to which they are not referring?  Welcome to the English language.

Thats pretty much my take on it every time I see someone using gay as a negative synonym when describing something they think as bad, and yet often when confronted on it they wonder why your getting aggressive with them, when it should just be a fact of the matter in modern 21st century society they should know that gay people are people, and its only because of being used as a negative synonym that they can't just accept that fact.

I think I understand where you're coming from now.  When you hear people use the word you see them as using a word which describes you in a negative way.  But I can tell you, in their minds, they are not thinking of sexuality when using the word.  They are using it in a different, completely unrelated way and in no way insinuating sexuality.  They are using a legitimate definition of the word, found in dictionaries for about as long as the definition you generally think of.  If I'm understanding what's going on here (and I may not be) what we have is a traditionally victimized populace just now getting a voice for the first time simply assuming that if it sounds like you're making fun of them, you're making fun of them.  It would certainly be understandable, but you should realize it's simply not the case.  I've used that word lots of times in they way you don't like, mostly in my childhood, back in a time where "gay people are evil" was a given and even then NOT ONCE did I say, "That is so gay" and mean "That is so homosexual".  Homosexuality never crossed my mind when using the word in that way.  It wasn't a factor.  Yes, gay people were evil.  That's what we were taught ("wisdom" I am very happy to have recovered from).  But I wasn't saying that, even then.  It wasn't about sexuality.  It was just a common usage of the word, completely independent from the other.

Anyone can make a mistake - not knowing using a certain  word can be offensive to somebody else, but once the mistake has been pointed out to that person, and that person continues using the offensive word, then you know you're dealing with an asshole or a bigot, or both.

That's a little harsh.  No matter what you do or say, someone is going to be offended by your beliefs, your opinions or even your completely innocent comments.  If you actually lived by this and had a large enough audience listening to you, you would eventually end up just never speaking again.

Keep doing that. Then your douchebaginess will ve obvious for dveryone.

Again, a bit overboard, I think.  After all, it is the person hearing it who is offended, not the person saying it intending to offend.  If I am offended by the word "moist" are you obligated to never use it in my presence?  And if you do anyway, is that a problem with you, or a problem with me?

I'm pansexual and transgender.
I don't really care if people use gay as a pejorative.

Someone using the word as a pejorative should, in my opinion, offend you, or at least have the intention of offending you.  If you can just laugh it off, good for you.  You're a better person than most.  But I'm not actually talking about people using it as a pejorative with the meaning "homosexual" intact.  I'm talking about people using a completely different definition utterly unrelated to sexuality.

My opinion on it, which is just an opinion, granted, is that there is no problem with using the word "gay" in a negative way IF you are using the legitimate definition, which seems to have disappeared from all the online dictionaries over the last few years, AND you are not even remotely referring to sexuality.  If I say some object is "gay" I am obviously not saying that is a homosexual object.  Yes, I am saying that I have a negative reaction to that object, but not to that object's sexuality.  Sexuality, another use of the word gay completely separate from this one, is not a factor in this usage.  As such, there is no intention to offend, there is no insinuation that homosexuality is bad, there is no connection between the two usages and, so, there is no offense, regardless whether someone takes offense by it or not.  In my opinion, someone who finds it offensive to use the word "gay" in that manner has no business using the word "lame" in the same way and, if they do, they have no standing from which to argue because they are being just as insensitive to those who can't walk without a second thought and without considering that it is exactly the same type of usage they, themselves, are offended by.  But they simply assume that since it is obvious that they are not saying, "That statuette is unable to walk normally" that it's not offensive.  Well, that's how people feel when they use the word "gay", not as a "pejorative", as everyone is assuming here, but in a way completely unrelated to sexuality.  They are not expressing contempt for homosexuality and, until the last few years, this was an actual definition of the word, its origins at about the same time as the other.

[gentle_dissident]

This thread is so black.

[Munch]

This thread is so black.

if anything its belch white, like every page on this site.

[facebook164]

That's a little harsh.  No matter what you do or say, someone is going to be offended by your beliefs, your opinions or even your completely innocent comments.  If you actually lived by this and had a large enough audience listening to you, you would eventually end up just never speaking again.
Again, a bit overboard, I think.  After all, it is the person hearing it who is offended, not the person saying it intending to offend.  If I am offended by the word "moist" are you obligated to never use it in my presence?  And if you do anyway, is that a problem with you, or a problem with me?

Bullshit. "It's so gay" is only a negative remark if you see "gay" denoting something bad.