|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6
stranger
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6 |
Anyone who knows the language should refuse to use the word. In my dictionary, there is a full page of homo-words, all having a conotation of "same". If someone learned English without knowing slang, they would interpret homophobic as meaning "fear of your own kind". Someone who didn't know the language properly, took the slang term "homo" and created this word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Yep, you're right. But language changes, as I have been led to accept and understand.
Do you have an alternative?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
Gay is, I think, a rather absurd euphemism while homo refers clearly to love for one of the same gender. 'Gay' for homosexual took away the innocence of the original meaning of the word gay. Gay-o-phobia, you can't be serious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
I object not only to the absurd etymological construction of the word, but also to the way it is popularly used. I know I'm touching on politics here, but it is also a case of word abuse.
Allowing for a moment its valid use to mean fear of homosexuals, and by extension hatred also (since hatred often comes from fear), there is a kind of person that is truly homophobic because they are suppressing their own homosexual tendencies (like the next door neighbour in the film American Beauty). However, it is now used as a pejorative term to describe anyone who opposes the homosexual lobby in any way. Even if someone is not afraid or, or does not hate homosexuals, if they say anything against homosexual practices or lifestyles, they earn this label. If you do not agree with the beliefs of homosexual lobbyists you are automatically considered "homophobic." That is a great language coup by the homosexual lobbyists that is rarely commented on because to do so is to become homophobic. It's a bit like speaking against a conspiracy theory - in the mind of those who hold it you become part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I object not only to the absurd etymological construction of the word, but also to the way it is popularly used. I know I'm touching on politics here, but it is also a case of word abuse.
Allowing for a moment its valid use to mean fear of homosexuals, and by extension hatred also (since hatred often comes from fear), there is a kind of person that is truly homophobic because they are suppressing their own homosexual tendencies (like the next door neighbour in the film American Beauty). However, it is now used as a pejorative term to describe anyone who opposes the homosexual lobby in any way. Even if someone is not afraid or, or does not hate homosexuals, if they say anything against homosexual practices or lifestyles, they earn this label. If you do not agree with the beliefs of homosexual lobbyists you are automatically considered "homophobic." That is a great language coup by the homosexual lobbyists that is rarely commented on because to do so is to become homophobic. It's a bit like speaking against a conspiracy theory - in the mind of those who hold it you become part of it. Language is not static in its forms or meanings or usage. Either in time or in place (dialects). It is a fluid, living, ever changing creature. It creeps, downwards, upwards, and sideways.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
I object not only to the absurd etymological construction of the word, but also to the way it is popularly used. I know I'm touching on politics here, but it is also a case of word abuse.
Allowing for a moment its valid use to mean fear of homosexuals, and by extension hatred also (since hatred often comes from fear), there is a kind of person that is truly homophobic because they are suppressing their own homosexual tendencies (like the next door neighbour in the film American Beauty). However, it is now used as a pejorative term to describe anyone who opposes the homosexual lobby in any way. Even if someone is not afraid or, or does not hate homosexuals, if they say anything against homosexual practices or lifestyles, they earn this label. If you do not agree with the beliefs of homosexual lobbyists you are automatically considered "homophobic." That is a great language coup by the homosexual lobbyists that is rarely commented on because to do so is to become homophobic. It's a bit like speaking against a conspiracy theory - in the mind of those who hold it you become part of it. Language is not static in its forms or meanings or usage. Either in time or in place (dialects). It is a fluid, living, ever changing creature. It creeps, downwards, upwards, and sideways. There's no inconsistency there. I'm only objecting to the disingenuous use of the word. It is not generally accepted as meaning simply opposed to homosexuality or homosexual practices. Its generally accepted meaning is a pejorative one. This is someone with something wrong with them, someone who is suffering some kind of mental problem or paranoia. That's fine if that's what it has come to mean. But applying the word 'homophobic' with all those negative connotations to someone who simply opposes or criticises something to do with homosexuality or particular homosexuals the clear implication is that any criticism of things Gay must be inherently psychologically unhinged. It thus stymies objective debate about Gay issues and is simply namecalling as a substitute for rational counterargument.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Any word can be misused. The word liberal has taken on a pejorative sense, for bleep sake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
Any word can be misused. The word liberal has taken on a pejorative sense, for bleep sake. 'Bleep' - now there's a word with an interesting etymology I bet. Liberal - depends on the context. It used to mean simply generous in temperament and behaviour. It can also mean people of certain political leanings, certain schools of theology, or someone loose and lavish with their possessions. In Australia, with a capital 'L' it is a political party, which, confusingly is not politically 'liberal' in the sense that Americans use the word, viz to describe the social liberalism of the Democrats, but is the Australian equivalent of the Republican party (well the nearest we've got to it). Of course if you are of the opposite political or theological persuasion in any of those contexts then, yes, it becomes a pejorative term in certain circles. But it doesn't have an inherently negative etymology like 'homophobic' does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Words don't have to mean what their etymologies suggest. Homosexaphobia might suit you better, but it's a mouthful. It also wouldn't address the criticism I have heard more people make, namely, that they are not "afraid" of homosexuals, but merely dislike / hate / pity them.
No doubt politicians and others use words like Humpty-Dumpty, but often with an attempt to misdirect or "reframe" the discussion. If you like a policy, you will describe it in terms that would mark dissenters as opponents of reason or humanity. This is not the purview of a single party or philosophy. We have (in the US) 'The New Deal', and 'Affirmative Action', but we also have 'Defense of Marriage Act' and 'No Child Left Behind.'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
'Gay' for homosexual took away the innocence of the original meaning of the word gay.
From Partridge (1961) A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (in two volumes): "Gay. (Of women) leading an immoral, or a harlot's, life: 1825, Westmacott (OED), In C. 20, coll., on verge of SE.--2. Slightly intoxicated; ob. C.19-20; Perhaps orig. a euphemism.--3. Impudent, impertinent, presumptuous: US (--1899), anglicized in 1915 by PG Wodehouse, OED (Sup.)." Also, gay house == brothel; gay in the arse == (Of women) loose; to lead a gay life == to live immorally; the gay instrument == the male member; gaying it == sexual intercourse.
The word gay, like many a word in many a language, has many a meaning, yet nobody rails against the multiple meanings of set. Long ago, I came to the conclusion that it's not the word or its meanings that folks are uncomfortable with but the referent.
homosexual
The word was coined inthe mid-19th century. Many have railed against the word, which like telescope, is a mix of Greek (homos) and Latin sexualis. Somehow they think that one oughtn't to mix roots from the Classical languages. Some think the homo is the Latin for 'man, mankind', but that word would yield hominiphobia I suppose which still others might mistake for a 'fear of grits'.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,810
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
458
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
