Talk:Homosexuality and language

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(From edit comment) "no comments for improvement, so moving to main space". I can't say I saw it anwhere to comment on it. HelpJazz 15:09, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I had posted this on a "sandbox" page User:Foxtrot/Homosexuality_and_Language a few months ago when I created it, and then I updated it a few times two weeks ago. Both times my edit comments invited people to make comments and I figured enough people read Recent Changes to have seen it. Since no one made any comments while it was being compiled on that page, I finally moved it over. -Foxtrot 16:11, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Ah. I missed it in the RC's. I have some comments now, though. In general I'll go through the usual rigmarole and say that this should likely be in the essay namespace. It's well written, but it gives a general feeling of "making an argument" instead of "explaning a subject". Next, I don't think that the claim that homosexuals themselves are using the language to further the homosexual movement is fully supported. Contrary to this point, some of the words (dyke and queer, for example) are often used by non-homosexuals in a negative connotation. I have some criticisms about some of the individual terms, I'll save them until the overall thesis is better supported. HelpJazz 18:16, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
And in response I'll go through the usual rigmarole that if this deserves the essay namespace then several other mainspace articles deserve it, too, and I'm pretty sure they're going to stay where they are. :-) As for those words you mentioned, yes they have a history of negative use, but they've also been "reclaimed" as badges of pride. They should be neither. They should be able to return to their original, innocent meanings of "dam" and "slightly strange", respectively, but unfortunately hardly anyone uses (or can use) them that way anymore. Note that I didn't include certain other words (both I can think of begin with F and one has an innocent meaning to boot) which only have a negative context. I'm not here to slur homosexuals with offensive words, but I'm also not going to stand silently as our language gets manipulated. -Foxtrot 20:02, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
I guess I'm confused then. If homosexuals didn't assign them the negative use, then they didn't really "claim" them at all, right? They just attempted to redefine the already bastardized definition used to make the words slurs in the first place. So gays didn't really "appropriate" these words, they just "reappropriated" the slurs used against them. I know you don't mean it to sound this way, but because the definition was changed by someone else in the first place, the argument that the word should return to the definition it had before homosexuals changed it makes it seem like the words should go back to being slurs, instead of the innocent meanings they originally had. Though you might be right about the other words, and even the concept in general, I think the inclusion of "queer" and "dyke" hurts your argument. LiamG 21:16, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Okay, so since these words were not originally taken from their original definitions by homosexuals, I agree that their inclusion in the article weakens the argument. I've removed them. -Foxtrot 21:46, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Anti-Homosexual words

Will there be a section for innocent words appropriated by anti-homosexual crusaders as well?--Brossa 19:05, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

If you are refering to the two I alluded to in my second response above (they both begin with F), then my answer is no, I will not include that. We are not here to propagate the use of offensive slurs. Offensive name-calling only spreads hate and closes the very doors that could be open to well-reasoned arguments and facts. -Foxtrot 20:09, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
The list of 'innocent words' appropriated as anti-homosexual slurs is longer than the list of 'innocent words' appropriated by homosexuals. It is possible to acknowledge this without explicitly listing every, or even any, individual slur.--Brossa 21:06, 4 October 2008 (EDT)


Bugler has a good suggestion that I forgot about: Stonewall. HelpJazz, this is more than a British pro-homosexual organization (which I incidentally did not know about). It was the name of a prominent gay night club which operated outside the law in New York City (and had a history of bribing the police, as well as numerous mafia connections). When its unlawful operations were finally shut down by the city, the homosexuals rioted against the police and regular citizens. Many historians cite this as the unfortunate moment when the gay agenda entered the public spotlight. Now why they chose this name, which was associated with one of our greatest generals, is suspect... -Foxtrot 15:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

There was no citation, so I had to guess. I saw the stuff about the one gay club in the 40's (I think), but the only modern information I could find was the UK organization. HelpJazz 16:04, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
That's okay, now we have an article that we should have had a while ago. -Foxtrot 16:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

This article reads like an essay than encyclopedic content

In fact, I'm wondering if it's even a serious article. Jinx McHue 23:48, 9 May 2010 (EDT)