One of my main points about "crazy" is that at least where i live, the word crazy isn't often used in a derogatory way. 95% of the time it is used in a positive or neutral way. I generally think of it as someone who is doing something to the extreme or out of the ordinary. I don't think i've ever said, "that criminal is crazy", but if i did, it would be because the criminal is doing something extreme and out of the ordinary. Not because they are doing something wrong. Hearing someone say that would be quite an odd occurrence though. I would mildly be against it.

'Crazy' is used in a positive way, 'gay' isn't.  Even when 'crazy' is negative, comparing 'crazy' and 'gay' is like apples and oranges.  The black and white skin color example is closer related to the word 'gay' being used in derogatory ways.  'Gay' is much less subjective and more permanent than crazy.
From that link posted:  http://nervation.tumblr.com/post/7187130352/tw-ableism-slurs-suicidal-ideation-self-harm
"To clarify, I don’t think that being disabled = less than, all I’m saying is that’s not who I am. It’s not all that I am, at least."
The difference with racial/sexual slurs is in this example:
"Gay is who I am by proper definition, not by slurred definition.  Slurs associate who I am with negative things and that offends me."

It's two separate arguments.  And the person in that link needs to get some help if they are suicidal.  Gay people are not part of a disorder like a mental disorder or any disorder.

Here is my exact problem with this entire debate, no offense to anyone or his/her views.

The actual definition of the word "gay" isn't even this. It's "happy". If you wish, you could even trace it back to its origins, likely in Roman or Germanic or Anglo-Saxon, and find that, 1000 years ago, it meant octopus or enlightenment or something else entirely different. It's only been in the last ~75 years, I believe, that "gay" has even taken on the meaning of homosexuality. Words change. Demanding that a specific word meet your context while ignoring all others is selfish, and in this case, completely counteractive to the underlying problem.

Again, individually, words have different meanings. If a person doesn't like "gay" being used in a bad context, he/she should say so. At that point, it's up to others to heed that offense and be respectful. It's no different than not cussing in church, or not talking about sex around grandparents, etc. Everyone needs to stop putting so much emphasis on a single word with multiple meanings just because his/her feelings get hurt when we have far more important tasks at hand for both the LGBT community and the world at large.

Let's stop trying to tiptoe along the politically correct line and actually live. You can't really further any goals in equality if you continue to create barriers such as this one to distance and distinguish yourself from the greater population in a negative light. It just doesn't work.

i'm not into wacthing what i say i said and if people get offend well then that because they are being annoying i don't go out and make fun of people unless they say someone about me first then i let them have it

Gay does not mean happy anymore. When was the last time you've heard the word in a serious/normal conversation using the word gay as happy not used in a joking manner. Probably when you sang the Christmas carol, "Deck the Halls". Gay people who are not out would generally avoid telling someone that this offends them because that would hint to the person that they are gay, and they are deathly afraid of someone finding out. One of the main reasons being that it is aweful to be gay according to people's speech. Also based on their family's values, which may not relate to their own values.

How and why do you think that happened?

I think that the use of the word in the new definition has an impact on how people (especially youngins) view homosexual people. No, it's not like anyone is deliberately bashing anyone. But it promotes a more, err, "hostile" environment for gay people. If someone uses "gay" in that way, it cues to other people around him (at least, to me) that he most likely falls into the neutral-disapproving range of POV on homosexuality. Or probably hangs around with people who disapprove of it. 'Cause, why else would he say it, when he could say something equal/better that doesn't imply homosexuality = negative?

That's the outdated definition. Happy isn't an applicable meaning for gay anymore, for 99%+ people. "Homosexual" or "bad" are.

Generally, homos would want a lot of homo (gay) sex. It's still gay! Everyone gets to be gay!

what about people who use ***got as insult?

This thread is so two men in a committed relationship. :/

Furthermore, what about people who use it as a pet name

hey if people want to sound like ****s let them its thier life it not like telling them its worng will make them change thier minds i should know i tryed it didn't work out so well

Have I ever told you how much you remind me of this guy who used to stalk me

The resemblance is uncanny

Way to take one sentence of my argument out of context and construe it. You're better than that, Sprite.

It seems that many people in this topic (Spellman and Gray especially) are too busy masquerading behind philosophical issues and ignoring any kind of logic presented by Ken2 and others. I understand your point, Spellman: that when somebody says something like "MK is so gay" they are not attempting to offend gay people. Me, you, nor anybody in this topic would likely be offended by that because we all understand the meaning behind the words. But that is not Ken2's point! The point is, in that example, the word gay is given a negative conotation and therefore more impressionable individuals (ie young kids, both gay and straight) will begin to associate the word gay with negative ideas. This is problematic for individuals who identify themselves as gay for the reasons that Ken2 has already brought forth as well as straight individuals who may also learn to associate gayness with negative ideas and thus perpetuate stereotypes. In a world were many people are critical of gay people, where bullying is still a common occurance amongst school age gay children, I have to ask the question: Does using the word "gay" in a negative context do anything to help the gay community? I cannot think of any possible way it could. Does it do anything to hurt the gay community? I know some of you would answer that it is harmless, that it neither hurts nor helps, but I think you will find a lot more evidence on this side of the equation. And if it does more harm than good, what is the point in continuing to do it?

It does more harm than good to bring attention to the topic in general. That is the point I'm making that you deem a philosophical masquerading.

By essentially "outlawing" a word (I use quotes because I can't think of a better word at the moment) the gay community is bringing a light onto itself that can be seen very negatively. The people demanding that others stop using a word because it doesn't fit their definition can be seen as nitpicky, or tree-huggers, overly politically-correct ***holes trying to regulate what you say and when you say it. I totally understand the reasoning behind the request to stop using it-- I try not to use it, actually-- but drawing MORE attention to it by demanding it be labeled "wrong" to do so is, IMO, counterproductive to the main cause: finding acceptance within the majority's ranks.

I understand individuality and identity and whatever else, but the LGBT community's most outspoken people say they're fighting for acceptance, but most of their actions only further contrast them with "normal" people-- aka the ones holding the cards. Pride parades and obsession over topics pertaining to sexuality only serve to contrast them with the general public. This is another such topic.

My advice to gays is to simply let it slide when you know beyond reasonable doubt that the person saying it and the context in which he/she is saying it isn't meant to be offensive. There is no need to become moral police and tell other people what they should say or not say based on your individual code. There are much worse words and actions alike out there; don't throw accusations on people who are on your side to begin with.

What do 'tree-huggers' have to do with this?

I agree it does give the slur more power to address it but there are cases when people need to do so.  It's really a matter of the negative potential to offend a person(s).  Slurs can be hateful too and there's a sketchy line in the eye of the beholder that defines how hurtful a word is.
It's like calling women (or men *shrug*) b****es; maybe some don't mind or care enough to bring it up but the term is censored because it's potential to offend.
'Gay' isn't censored because it can be used in positive ways too but most slurs are censored on this site because someone might be offended. 
Similarly I wouldn't use the WW2 slur for Japanese people, a slur for people with African heritage or any racial slurs even in friendly context.

Idk how to feel about gay pride parades. Personally i have always been against them for the reasons that Grey mentioned and also because there are so many ridiculous people flaunting their mostly naked self in some slutty rainbow glitter and underwear and things of the like. The thing that confuses me is that it seemed to have worked to bring attention to the subject and give gays more rights. I know that not all gay pride parades are the same. Some may have been conducted in a fashion that would have my respect.

You obviously created this thread for the sole purpose of arguing with people. Either that or you have no idea how to word an OP without sounding hostile and provocative. (Just so you know, provocative is another one of those words that has more than one meaning; I was saying it provokes, not that it is arousing. Just thought I'd clarify since you seem to have trouble accepting words with more than one meaning behind them.)

As has been said in this thread numerous times already, words only have the meaning that we give them. Without user intent, words are meaningless noise, entirely inconsequential. However when we, as humans, understand the context of the syllables spewing from our sound holes and what they mean to us, that is when words have meaning.

To say that a word or a phrase is inherently "wrong" is actually incredibly close-minded. You can't expect everybody else in the world to cater to the way you feel about a particular word or phrase, rather than you simply understanding their meaning and moving on. Let me put this in another way.

If you have a fourteen year old boy playing Halo online and he screams "aw ****, that's so gay!" over Live, do you really think he's equating the proverbial anal fisting he just received to homosexuality? Do you think he's trying to personify the game with a characteristic indicative of living things? The answer, of course, is no. Those were actually rhetorical questions. This young child, no matter how annoying he is, is simply using language. Language he and his fellow Halo buddies, be they 14 or 44 understand and probably use. In all likelihood, none of them hate or dislike gay people.

tl;dr this thread is gay

Armus you are my hero.





words only have as much power as you, people, give them, making a huge issue about this will only make it worse, hell, most of the people who drive attention to the issue aren't even gay.

Genuis.