Haven’t asked this in a while…

[Mornac]

• Tweet

I know it sends everyone running for the hills, but I feel it’s necessary to roll it out every once in awhile just in case a liberal is feeling suddenly enlightened and is ready to break ranks with the liberally indoctrinated long enough  to make an honest effort:

Is there anyone here who can give a definition of the word “gay” as it is commonly used by liberals?

[Case_Closed]

Is there anyone here who can give a definition of the word “gay” as it is commonly used by liberals?

"Gay," (used by liberals):  Any person who is engaged in a debate with a liberal where the liberal is clearly over their head in the debate where repeated attempts of calling their opponent "a racist" has been ineffectual and where repeated reference to the opponent the liberal is debating with having had sex (oral and anal) with their father has been met with deaf ears, and where the liberal has suggested that the opponent they are debating should go to a cemetery, disinter their dead mother and have sex (oral, anal and vaginal) with her.

[Mornac]

Okay. I've seen it used that way before. Let's hear from some of the others and see if we can't come up with at least a few common threads running through their definitions that may give the term a little validity (and maybe even some gravitas!).

[Boffo]

liberals using the "g" word and any of it's homosexual derivations

to them a gay person is one who deserves adulation and rights beyond and above anyone else, even if it means trashing all definitions of a word, legal, historic and biblical.

UNLESS they are accusing a conservative of being a gay person,for expressing a non liberal opinion about gays closeted or open, then said person should be scorned and ridiculed without due process for at least 30,000 Newsrake postings

in other words, it can be a compliment or a club in the hands of a liberal

if they can invent or convert a cool word like "gay" to designate homo's why can't they invent a cool word for  civil unions between any 2 people for whatever their reasons allowing the millions who cherish their legally, historic and often church defined status of married to not be diminished?

support would be overwhelming from all sides  imo

[DougRich]

Is there anyone here who can give a definition of the word “gay” as it is commonly used by liberals?

You really seem to be obsessing over what obviously seems to you to be some really vital question. This is the second thread in a couple of days that you've either devoted to it, or in which you've managed to hijack the entire thread in order to "discuss" it.

Personally, I don't care for the word, and rarely use it, unless someone like you insists on making it the entire focus of their thinking and conversation. It makes much more sense, from a factual, practical and legal standpoint, to talk about "same-sex" attraction, marriage, relationships, etc.

"Gay" is definitely over- and inappropriately used in the popular media, in my opinion...and it's pretty obviously used in different ways, to mean different things, by different people, in very diverse situations.

[Case_Closed]

Besides, anyone who is "hip" doesn't spell it G-a-y nowadays.  It's spelled "G-h-e-y."

FACT!!

Same for "homo."  You're really cool (spelled khuel) if you spell it "homer."  As in homersexual.

[Pepsi]

I know it sends everyone running for the hills, but I feel it’s necessary to roll it out every once in awhile just in case a liberal is feeling suddenly enlightened and is ready to break ranks with the liberally indoctrinated long enough  to make an honest effort:

Is there anyone here who can give a definition of the word “gay” as it is commonly used by liberals?

Gay can be like homosexual or historically it can mean 'fun'.... Why do you ask?

[Mornac]

liberals using the "g" word and any of it's homosexual derivations

to them a gay person is one who deserves adulation and rights beyond and above anyone else, even if it means trashing all definitions of a word, legal, historic and biblical.

UNLESS they are accusing a conservative of being a gay person,for expressing a non liberal opinion about gays closeted or open, then said person should be scorned and ridiculed without due process for at least 30,000 Newsrake postings.

--Yeah, I definitely get the feeling that definition is what a lot of them are employing Boffo, although I’m not ready to condemn them for hijacking an established word. The language is shaped by the people who use it and if a particular group uses a word to mean something different than it has in the apst then I can’t and won’t argue with them over it. What I will argue about is their blatant refusal use the word to derogate you without telling tell you the new, apparently secret meaning they’ve given to it.
   

in other words, it can be a compliment or a club in the hands of a liberal

--Exactly – and that’s the way they like it.
 

if they can invent or convert a cool word like "gay" to designate homo's why can't they invent a cool word for  civil unions between any 2 people for whatever their reasons allowing the millions who cherish their legally, historic and often church defined status of married to not be diminished?

--I’m not even sure I’d object to the term “gay marriage” as long as they describe exactly what that means. They won’t. In fact they don’t even like being asked. It makes you wonder if they’re not privately ashamed about something.

[Mornac]

You really seem to be obsessing over what obviously seems to you to be some really vital question. This is the second thread in a couple of days that you've either devoted to it, or in which you've managed to hijack the entire thread in order to "discuss" it.

--I’m not obsessing over it. It’s just something I was reminded of the other day when you used the word “homophobia” and then went on to define it using the word “gay” which you wouldn’t define thus rendering your “homophobia” definition worthless.  I caught you unawares and you were caught in a situation where you had to either betray your liberal brethren by answering the question or run for the hills. Obviously you chose the later, so I thought I’d try this in the open field to see if anyone;s ready to come clean. So far I’m only getting worthwhile input from the conservatives here, but I never give up hope.

Personally, I don't care for the word, and rarely use it, unless someone like you insists on making it the entire focus of their thinking and conversation.

--I don’t care for it either since no one ever defines it. I can’t communicate properly with people who use words that they refuse to define. You have no idea how big of a headache that causes normal people.

It makes much more sense, from a factual, practical and legal standpoint, to talk about "same-sex" attraction, marriage, relationships, etc.

--I agree, and I personally prefer to talk about the phenomenon of “same sex attraction” using exactly that word. How it can be used to modify words like “marriage”, “relationships”, etc. would take a little further discussion but at least there would be a base point. Unfortunately, the people of any influence (activists, liberal lawmakers) won’t do that.

"Gay" is definitely over- and inappropriately used in the popular media, in my opinion...and it's pretty obviously used in different ways, to mean different things, by different people, in very diverse situations.

--Yeah. So when those people call me “anti-gay”, what does that mean?

[Mornac]

Gay can be like homosexual or historically it can mean 'fun'.... Why do you ask?

--Because the “homosexual” end of isn’t clear. Maybe it would help if you define “homosexual” here. (I know. We went down this road before and no one manned up. Months have passed though, so it won’t hurt to try again).

[DougRich]

--Yeah. So when those people call me “anti-gay”, what does that mean?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to ask them?

And if you're referring to people in the media, advocates, public figures, etc - people whom you really aren't in a position to contact directly and ask anything - what makes you think they're talking about you?

Perhaps you may find the answer to your question in the answer to my question, posed in the second paragraph of this post.

[Mornac]

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to ask them?

--No, because I’m referring to people in the media, advocates, public figures, etc - people whom I’m really not in a position to contact directly and ask anything.

And if you're referring to people in the media, advocates, public figures, etc - people whom you really aren't in a position to contact directly and ask anything - what makes you think they're talking about you?

--Well let’s just take these people for example (Attention “Gay Porn” patrol: Some of you more intolerant types may find advertising in this site to be offensive). I don’t know who they are and I’ve never even heard about them until just now when I popped “anti-gay” into a search engine and their site was one that came up. Now I’m a Catholic and when I see the term “anti-gay” show up as many times as it does in this article in conjunction with Catholic figures and Catholic practices – and without definition; I feel I have the right to believe I’m a target here. Am I wrong?

Perhaps you may find the answer to your question in the answer to my question, posed in the second paragraph of this post.

--I believe I just answered it but in so doing I haven’t found the answer to my question. Any other ideas? Or am I just supposed to sit down and keep my mouth shut while being abused by virulent anti-Catholics?

[notoc]

Haven’t asked this in a while…

That's only true if you measure "a while" in terms of short periods of time, most people don't measure it in that way.

I feel I have the right to believe I’m a target here. Am I wrong?

Your sense of victimhood appears to be so entrenched in your psyche as to prevent you from reaching any other conclusion.

[notoc]

No, because I’m referring to people in the media, advocates, public figures, etc - people whom I’m really not in a position to contact directly and ask anything.

Yet this is the advise you give others:

--It is the observation of the person who prepared the report. If you have problems with it you’ll have to contact her.

You can always contact the AP and ask them about it.

If you doubt the veracity of anything in them, you need only contact the publication and take them to task.

[Mornac]

That’s an excellent point notoc. Thank you, I’ll give it a try. I’m just off to work but if I find a few free moments during the day I’ll try to put something together and get it off to them. I’ll post it here so everyone concerned can see it and I’ll post their response in the event the give one.