Somehow, my last, brief post having fun with Mark Sanford’s reputation for frugality quickly led to a discussion between readers about whether Abraham Lincoln was gay. Don’t ask me how, just look and see if you don’t believe me. Such is the nature of blog comment threads.
Anyway, the discussion led me off on my own mental digression. I started thinking about words.
To begin with, I don’t believe there was anything "gay" about Lincoln, in any sense of the word. He was pretty much chronically depressed, as I recall.
Along those lines, have you ever considered what an odd euphemism "gay" is for "homosexual?" I’ve never liked it, and I don’t know why "gay" people do. First, I don’t see why anyone would associate unreserved felicity with any particular sexual orientation, much less one that carries so much painful stigma with it. To call people who carry that burden through their lives in this hetero world "gay" is to mock the pain that must, very often, certainly be their lot. Also, it seems insulting and dismissive to me. It’s like we’re calling them "giddy" or "silly," or in some other way dismissing them as unworthy of being considered seriously.
Why people would embrace it as a way to describe themselves is beyond me. It seems, if you will forgive the term, perverse. It’s as though one is declaring, "Look at me, I’m a silly person who fulfills all the stereotypes in your head — I just go gaily through life thinking of nothing but Judy Garland, decorating my home and clothes shopping." And maybe that’s what it’s about — defiant irony. But I don’t think it works.
To see how inadequate the term is, follow bill‘s suggestion and go to Andrew Sullivan’s blog. Check out the serious thoughtfulness with which he deals with issues. Is "gay" a proper term to use to describe him, simply because he is homosexual? It certainly isn’t the first word that would come to my mind.
Even if it is embraced ironically, "gay" just doesn’t make sense to me. (Of course, I have to admit that homosexuality doesn’t make sense to me either, so I guess my lack of understanding is to be expected.) I think those more "in-your-face" activists who defiantly use the term "queer" are more on the mark. The word makes sense from both hetero- and homo- perspectives. To straight people, homosexuality is queer, in the sense of being an aberration (certainly in the statistical sense, at the very least), and so alien to the way we think that it is beyond our ken. For homosexuals themselves, it seems to be a more effective banner to fly to demonstrate pride in being different — especially if you’re trying to be defiantly ironic.
Anyway, that’s the way the words strike me.
Related Posts
I’m “Queer” or “Gay” and don’t care for either
word.I really don’t like to be defined by my sexuality.I take full responsibility for diverting your post,but couldn’t resist making a dig at Dave,who often makes antifag,homo,whatever slurs about this minority.When heterosexuals get over their bigotry,then there won’t be a need to use either word.We could just call each other homosapiens.Or people.And,hey,I hate Judy Garland.My favorite vocalist of all time is George Jones.
How about FRUIT as ‘the’ descriptive for the floating meringue island we gay men call home? FRUIT…at once a paradox,describing everything and nothing about the true ‘act’ of being attracted to one’s own sex, but everything about personal tastes.
Great Craig!
It doesn’t get any queerer than that!
Imagine being called “gay” when we spend every day deciding whether or not to kill ourselves.
About the ‘killing ourselves’ part; I don’t feel that decision weighing heavily on the gay-boys I associate with.
Gay or not, we might all just decide to read Ekert Tolle and get to just being;not needing to live or die. I’m not saying DO IT, I’m just saying ‘what if’?
Bill, You must be really thin skinned to think I am anti gay in any way. If you knew me personally you would realize that. I saw your comment about deciding day by day whether to kill yourself. I cannot even imagine that but if that is true you need some help. In prior posts, I have said I work with gays, have rented to them, etc. and don’t resent them at all. No, I don’t support “marriage” for gays. I also try to stay as far as I can from the “hate” word. So lighten up a little and enjoy some free speech, but not hate speech.
The only way to sell any of the socialistic agenda is to avoid an accurate description of its agenda.
It’s the only way to sell ANYTHING.
CL
Who cares what anyone calls themselves. Gay, homosexual, straight, whatever. I like “Queer Nation” best. At least it’s honest.
Had a colleague once who claimed to be “queer as a ______”. Made no bones about it. Still does. He was a decent, friendly person who didn’t push himself or his ways on anyone. Good worker, too. Still is.
I don’t approve of his lifestyle, but so what. He probably doesn’t approve of mine (or yours).
If an alien being were to arrive and watch network TV, they would believe that one third of the population must be gay. The Hollyweird liberals continually try to advance the gay agenda in spite of nearly total rejection by middle America. Fundamental Muslims point to this cultural phenomenom as a reason to despise the infidels of the western world. In the middle east, gays caught practicing are beheaded. Mark Steyn wrote recently that Europe, holding a noticeable number of gay citizens, will find the wealthiest gays attempting to move to the United States for safety.
The primary reason the Muslims hate America is the debauched image they receive from Hollywood.
Changing meanings can puzzle.
For years the theater stage at the Art Institute of Chicago had the following — originally intended to convey the importance of motivation, drive, inspiration — inscribed at its top:
I don’t know if it’s still there; I can’t seem to find a current reference.
Craig,Dave,
I was being sarcastic about “killing ourselves”.That was in reference to Brad’s comments about the word gay being used for people who have such a “tragic lot” in life.
Me and my partner will be celebrating ten very happy years together in Sept.
Dave,
OK,your’re not antigay but you don’t believe gays deserve the civil right to marry.WHAT AGENDA?!
Mike,
Faggots were the small twigs of wood used to burn witches in Salem,and most were homosexual.I believe that’s how the meaning
changed.In Britain,it became a slang term for cigarettes.
Bill, the gay agenda comprises many things. Marriage rights, adoption rights, preferential treatment in hiring and promotion within business and government, insurance rights for partners, change in military policy on gays, and a list of many other things. The more radical gays want to be able to legally have sex with children – NAMBLA for one. I am sure you are aware of all of the above. When you post as sarcasm, you should note that for us gullibles out here.
Preferential treatment?That just isn’t true.
I hate NAMBLA.As for everything else you mentioned;marriage,adoption,insurance for partners,military policy.That is a quest for civil rights.If you want to call it an agenda,fine.If you don’t think we deserve civil rights,that’s fine too.You’re not going to stop us.
You sure do think about homosexuals a lot.
Well, I have to say I was as taken in as Dave. I was sort of worried about you there, Bill. The sarcasm didn’t come across.
Anyway, I’m glad that’s what it was. I know about depression (although I’ve never had it THAT bad), and it’s no fun.
Bill, I guess it does look like I think about the gay issues quite a bit. I don’t – I am just responding to posts. I am more interested in keeping the character and culture of the US what it was in the past that made us so successful and the envy of the planet. Changes have been made that were needed, especially in regard to slavery, and voters rights, etc. But this nation was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation and there are many “agendas” out there that would do away with that foundation. Not just gay. Secular humanists, socialist/communists, multi-culturalists, to name a few.
I am also glad you were simply being sarcastic. I’m glad you feel the same way I do about the Nambla types. Cheers.
Dave, how far back in the past are we going on this quest to preserve the “character and culture…that made us so successful”? I thought liberty, justice, freedom were the things on which this country was founded. I’m not aware that we were founded as any particular type of theocracy. I also thought it was our freedom that made us the envy of the world, and the target of Al-“They Hate Our Freedom”-Qaeda. I don’t know about communists (ARE there any left in this country?) but certainly secular humanists, gays, even what you call “multi-culturalists,” all have an agenda that only seeks to fulfill the inherent American promise, the potentiality of a true realization of the freedom contained in the “American idea.”
Knave shows his ignorance (in spades) once more. He’s a joker who’s fooling no one.
This country was founded on the Almighty dollar, not religion, though the two have been blended over time and have proven a profitable pair. Not much has changed, has it? Only the ante has upped.
Southern planters and treasure seekers precede and trump northern religious nuts.
Phillip – after the seculars have taken God out of public discourse and the multi-culturalists have purged our history and the socialists have taxed those who work to the point of disincentive, then what? This is what the cultural war is all about, plus more. If given their way, there will be no statues of Robert E. Lee in America. No Ten Commandments in public places. In God We Trust removed from our currency. English could be supplanted as our primary language. All of the above will not happen overnight, but this is the agenda of those who would destroy that which has made this country great. Because ultimately the American people are not as stupid as some think they are, the nation has been turning rightward since the 1980’s slowly but surely, and a lot of that change is in response to the subtle yet constant attack on our founding principles.
Once again, Warthen demonstrates the laziness and stupidity that has led to his failure as a journalist. Meanings of words come from usage, and the most prevalent meaning of the word “gay” has, through usage over the last 40 or 50 years, come to be “homosexual,” usually “male homosexual.”
Warthen says this:
“I’ve never liked it,”
No one cares.
He also says this:
“and I don’t know why “gay” people do.”
No one is surprised.
He also says this:
“Also, it seems insulting and dismissive to me. It’s like we’re calling them “giddy” or “silly,” or in some other way dismissing them as unworthy of being considered seriously.”
That’s because Warthen is stupid. The word “gay,” when used to refer to sexual orientation, doesn’t carry those other meanings. Every use of a word doesn’t carry all the possible meanings of the word. A use of a word that can take on multiple meanings typically carries only the meaning called for by the particular context in which the word is being used. When we describe someone as “gay,” in the sense of sexual orientation, we are simply talking about his sexual orientation, not describing his emotional state as carefree.
Warthen says this:
“It’s as though one is declaring, “Look at me, I’m a silly person who fulfills all the stereotypes in your head — I just go gaily through life thinking of nothing but Judy Garland, decorating my home and clothes shopping.” And maybe that’s what it’s about — defiant irony. But I don’t think it works.”
Again, Warthen says this because he is stupid. He doesn’t understand how language is used, and how a word can take on a particular meaning – ONE particular meaning – in a particular context. It’s interesting that Warthen lacks the most elementary understanding of the use of language. Of course, noting that Warthen is a failed journalist working at a newspaper that can only be called a journalistic sewer lessens our surprise at his ignorance of what might be considered the barest rudiments of journalism.
Now, this:
” I think those more “in-your-face” activists who defiantly use the term “queer” are more on the mark.”
demonstrates that just as Warthen has on other occasions plumbed dishonesty and hypocrisy to their very depths, so, too, has he reached a nadir of stupidity unepxlored to this point by any other human being.
Gay people mostly don’t like to use the term “queer” in going about their daily lives and engaging in everyday conversation because it is usually used as a derogatory term. Unless there is some particular need, people mostly don’t like to use derogatory terms to describe themselves.
In answer to this:
“For homosexuals themselves, it seems to be a more effective banner to fly to demonstrate pride in being different — especially if you’re trying to be defiantly ironic.”
I would only say that it isn’t necessary to fly a banner to “demonstrate pride in being different” at all times and during all seasons. It isn’t necessary to use highly loaded words all the time. Most of the time, gay people aren’t trying to be defiantly ironic. They’re just living their lives, using the words that express the meanings they want to express. They mostly don’t care too much about some failed journalist’s forays into what is, for him, evidently etymological quicksand.
You don’t see much effort by “mainstream gays” to challenge NAMBLA, because so much of the homosexual agenda depends upon recruiting young people, and indoctrinating young adults to cowed silence while children are molested.
Lee,
They say you can’t argue with a sick mind.You have a sick mind.
Mary,
Excellent post.
bill, it’s the facts which stop your argument.
Come on people. Name calling and insults are not what a blog is about.
Whether you know it or not or whether you even believe it or not The United States was founded on Christian principals. That is a fact. It can be proven. If you are a christian and believe the word of God, homosexuality is an abomination to Almighty God.
I am 56 years old and grew up in a world where homosexuals were laughed at and ridiculed. I my self took part in some of that, which I now regret. I wanted nothing to do with gay people and I certainly did not want to know anything about them.I could have been considered a “gay basher”.
10 years ago my wife and I became friends with a gay couple. We were both apprehensive about a friendship with gays. However after several years of developing a wonderful friendly relationship, I came to the conclusion that I may not agree with a gay person’s lifestyle but that didn’t mean I could not appreciate them as human beings with some great qualities. I found that I didn’t give a rip about their sexual practices but that they were warm and caring individuals who were always there when we needed them.
I am a christian and I believe every word in the Bible. Nowhere in the word of God does it say to hate anyone for any reason. I believe the love of Christ transends all differences.