It was pretty simple, actually. I sat them down and talked to them. I basically said, "Look, you guys are taking advantage of the fact that I am almost never home, and you're taking advantage of me. It needs to stop. Now." They apologized, and it hasn't been a problem since. (Granted, this was only a couple of days ago, but still.)
Yeah but some of your friends don't sound much like friends. I'm just sayin'
I've taken care of that situation Thought you'd like to know.
My dad I thought was okay with it but recently I found out that it bothers him a lot. I went into his house with a hat on (the greatest hat I've ever owned. It's a trucker hat given to me by my friend Gabe for my birthday last year. It says "Go Gays" as if the Gays are a sports team. Love it.) A few weeks.... months? later my step mom lets me know that he said to her "I know Micah's gay. But, he doesn't have to flaunt it."
I received the same reaction from my Uncle in response to a rainbow bracelet I was wearing. I didn't see what the big deal was, since it was only one of about a dozen bracelets I was wearing, but he apparently told my aunt the whole "What he does in the bedroom is his own business, but he doesn't have to flaunt it in front of me."
I'm glad your friends are coming around. I was fortunate enough to have friends who basically don't care one way or the other. I also have the dubious distinction of not having parents to tell, so I am at a loss for any sort of advice. The only thing I can say is to drive forward, and when you think the time is right, try to talk to them. Maybe they'll listen.
I disagree. In my mind they're clearly semantically related.
Whether they are semantically linked is irrelevant if there is no psychological connection being made.
That said, I'll respond to the bit on the semantic relationship which I apparently ignored (it was not intentional).
But consider this (and these semantic shades of meaning are discussed in detail in that study I linked to):
1 - Gay means homosexual, of course.
2 - It's also used as an insult for any male who exhibits characteristics associated with the gay stereotype, regardless if you mean to imply that the person is literally homosexual (of course, they often do mean it literally)
3 - It's also used as an insult for any male who is effeminate, which is clearly linked to the previous, regardless if you mean to imply that the person is literally homosexual
4 - It's also used as an insult for any male who does not follow the hegemonic masculine norms, which is also clearly linked to the previous. As noted in that study, it was commonly used as a term of abuse for the unathletic boys, the studious boys, the boys who behaved too well in class (i.e. teacher's pets). As such, this is a much more general use, which makes it easy to extend to
5 - a term of general abuse for other males. Which is easily extended to
6 - a term of general abuse for anything the speaker doesn't like, whether it's animate or inanimate, or an action. And to a lesser extent, to females.
This is not a diachronic sequence. That is, this isn't how the term evolved over a long period of time, and the intermediate meanings have fallen out of use so that you can't see the connection between 1 and 6 (not, as I said, that I think that the connection between 1 and 6 is a big leap). Those usages are all still in use. And I think it's pretty obvious that those meanings are all semantically connected, and I don't think that they're all clearly and distinctly separable. If you're called "gay" for doing something, it's not as if you can clearly separate out whether you're being called that as 2, 3, 4 or 5, or even a combination thereof.
What you can do, however, is separate which meanings are intended as specifically homophobic and which are intended as a term of general abuse. This distinction is relevant. There is some gray area, but context can dissolve that fairly simply. I probably sound very redundant here, as I've stated this numerous times, but I think the distinction really does matter. The two usages are most definitely linked semantically; I would never argue the contrary. But unless they are psychologically linked, unless it reinforces in the mind of the speaker negative attitudes of homosexuality, it is irrelevant.
Now, it is certainly arguable that it reinforces these notions in the mind of the listener. A child growing up and hearing all sorts of negative things referred to as gay may be troubled by this if that child ends up being gay.
But the difference between the speaker's intention and the listener's perception is important. The listener may make a connection, especially in the situation above, but only if he is a terribly equivocal thinker. And then it is not because of a semantic chain, but because he does not choose to make the conscious differentiation.
And I feel like that when I was growing up (and I'm only 22 people, so don't act like I grew up in a different time), it was pretty damn obvious to me why most people used gay as an insult in the way they did. And it wasn't because of "just how the word evolved". It was clearly linked to negative attitudes towards homosexuality, given that you knew it wasn't arbitrary which boys were called "gay" or "****" and which ones weren't.
A wonderful example of a specifically homophobic usage, I'm sure.
And before you start accusing me of being oversensitive, keep in mind that I picked up these meanings before high school, and I think it's ridiculous to expect young kids not to internalize these negative connotations (much less for them to separate out meanings which I don't think are that semantically distinct in the first place). I know that I didn't, and I am pretty sure no one here really ought to accuse me of being stupid or linguistically inept. Hell, as far as I know, I'm the only actual linguist responding to the topic.
Of course, that isn't a guarantee that you would be adept in linguistics, given the state of American Universities. (The value of a socio-everything curriculum is questionable at best.)
I came out to my parents today and they didn't take it well. My dad isn't talking to me and my mom is crying, and I told my friends and they didn't take it well either. I feel really bad right now.
I'm sorry they reacted that way. I know it doesn't mean much, but know that we are all here for you.
Quote from erimir »
But I do think that at least some gay guys who act flaming all the time are probably doing so for reasons other than "that's just the way they are". There has to be some effect of the self-fulfilling stereotype, or thinking that's the way that gay men are supposed to act, so that's how I'm going to act. Which isn't to say that I think it's a conscious act.
I actually know a guy like that. He used to be a rather reserved kid; a conservative dresser, the works. That was freshman year of high school. Over the summer he came out, and he returned to school with a flashy new wardrobe, "gay" haircut, piercings, mannerisms, and his voice had leaped up an octave or so and boasted a moderate lisp. A few years later he cooled it down a bit, admitting that he was just acting that way because he thought it was expected.
Actually this country was founded on Christian principles.
No.
It wasn't written that homosexuality was prohibited because it was such a disgusting act that it was never even considered. If the founding fathers of this country had ever imagined that homosexuality would considered "Normal" they would have noted that in the Constitution. I would imagine that if someone even mentioned the fact that Homosexuals deserved the right to be married...they probably would have scoffed and mocked them no different than if someone wanted to marry an animal.
What the founding fathers would have written is irrelevant. It's what they wrote that matters; and in point of fact, what they did write is that marriage is the domain of the states, not the federal government, so they would not have commented on homosexual marriage anyway.
Homosexuality is a malfunction of the brain. Its that simple. They knew it then and it is commonly know now.
The straight guys I know don't watch the show. Some say it's just one of them gay shows, chick shows, or that it makes them uncomfortable.
Some, I feel, are afraid to find it funny.
Odd. I know many straight guys who love the show. I know a small handful who refuse to watch it on principle, but the others understand that laughing at gay jokes will not make them gay.
So do I. Just not many. I know more people like Ennis from Brokeback Mountain. So I guess, more people counter to the grain.
We must live in very different places. Almost every gay man I know--particularly those I went to high school with--are at the very least a Will character, but usually more like Jack. I've met two people who are like Ennis. And I'm one of them.
HISTORY IS REVISED!
horrible things were done to jews = acceptable fact
other than that we have exagerations, claims, and twisted uses of quotes.
The latter is what history is...
go read "The Historian and his Facts"
The Holocaust is one of the most well-documented events in history. There is ample uncorrupted evidence that one can easily turn to in order to demonstrate that little if any revisionism has taken place.
He's entitled to his belief that the holocaust never happened, just as everyone else on these message boards are entitled to their respective beliefs about the holocaust (not saying I agree with him, mind you).
Of course he is entitled to think that. We are, in turn, entitled to point out that his belief is blatantly and demonstrably false. Opinions are not sacred.
Personally, I think it's good to get a fresh perspective on things, even if it's blatantly contradictory to everything we've been taught. You don't have to agree with him, but nonjudgementally hearing what someone else has to say, especially someone who is the leader of an entire nation, can't hurt.
Why shouldn't we be judgmental when his beliefs contradict established fact? We have every right to judge his opinions as invalid.
And also, being the leader of a nation does not afford one the unique privilege of spouting ******** without censure. Especially when that leader is basically a fascist dictator.
Quote from steve-o »
but at columbia ahmadinejad said that he knows something (holocaust) happened, its just that he thinks it has fallen victim to historical revisonism, like many other things ppl like to not let die so they can use them. His point is against those ppl that use the holocaust to excuse israel and israel's actions against palestinians and muslims in general.
Except that a) he has no evidence or arguments that it has fallen victim to historical revisionism and b) no one uses the Holocaust as an argument to excuse Israel's actions against Palestine.
I had planned on travelling there, but then I realized that it is on the opposite side of the continent. I'm thinking of going in December of next year,on the grounds that I'll be driving from New Mexico rather than from New Hampshire.
In what cases? In determining the actual meaning of a word, I would agree. I don't insist that "homophobia" or "xenophobia" must refer to "fear of the same/fear of homosexuals" or "fear of foreigners/strangers" because the etymological root "phobia" means "fear" (and the root "homo" means "same). I realize that this morpheme has changed and now has a meaning of "hatred towards" as well, and hence we get the typical meanings of "homophobia" and "xenophobia" being "hatred towards homosexuals" and "hatred towards foreigners".
In this case, however, where the etymology is obvious, and known to all, it does matter. The etymology of "cockroach" coming from the Spanish "cucaracha" isn't really relevant to everyday speech. And the etymology of "slave" coming from "Slav", doesn't have much bearing either, given its distant origins, different spelling and pronunciation and the fact that discrimination and prejudice against Slavs is not much of an issue. The etymology of "******-rigged" coming from "******" is completely relevant to sociolinguistics.
And similarly, the known etymological link between "gay"="homosexual" and "gay"="bad" is also very relevant to sociolinguistics and psychology, which is basically what we're discussing.
I agree in principle, but in practice I do not think this is the case. In the case of words like "******-rigged", you are correct, insofar as the word "******" has never really diverged from its original meaning. It is arguable that "gay" has.
I'll use another example to illustrate my point. Take the usage of the word "Jew" in popular culture. One may say, "I Jewed this off some guy," or something to that effect. Now, clearly the usage is foundationed in Jewish stereotypes. The meaning is dependent on the root.
Now, some examples of "gay" usage: "That movie was so gay"; "Dude, don't be gay" [in a non-sexual context]; "Homework is gay." The meaning in these examples is in no way related to the homosexual root of the word. It is independent, it has diverged; I think this is extremely relevant, and falls under the same category as words like "xenophobic".
But is it different in the relevant ways? Given that sexual desire is more of a "lower order" function, it isn't unreasonable to assume that there will be a lot of commonalities.
For example, your aversion to eating at a restaurant that you got food poisoning at after eating there once (and perhaps knowing intellectually that it was caused by say, tainted spinach that was on a national scale and nothing to do with the particular restaurant) is automatic and often very strong. The way that mechanism works in rats isn't really different. They eat from a poisoned food source once, and they have an aversion to eating there again.
That is true, but note that human and animal sexuality is often very different. Human sexuality is entrenched in social norms, mores, and in a more abstract sense, in language. These are issues which animal sexuality does not seem to run into. Taking this along with the fact that mating patterns are strikingly different (for much the same reasons, actually), and we see that direct comparisons are all but impossible.
Ya, I feel no real need to belch loudly or to scratch my balls in public. Yet, I discuss emotional things with people, and I have an appreciation for flowers.
I drink beer while watching football, I enjoy bullfighting and boxing and the outdoors. I smoke big cigars and talk about the Red Sox. On the other hand, I am hyper-hygenic, have a shoe fetish, garden (flowerz = roxx0rz), and obsess over Coach purses.
Isn't marriage the ultimate goal of homosexuals? Isn't that the big priviledge that homos are waiting for?
I stand by my statement that you are not born gay. Homosexuality is a "learned" idea. Homosexuality is not normal. All you have to do is look at nature to understand that Heterosexuality is the norm. Without a Man and a Woman life cannot be sustained. There isn't a "maybe gay people will be able to reproduce in the future". With that fact in mind there must be a deformity or malfunction in the brain to go against this norm. My basis for this conclusion is that when you take away the modern shell of humanity you are left with a creature with a basic need for survival. The most basic form of survival for the human race is reproduction. How exactly is going against this most basic form of survival not a defect in a homosexuals brain?
"Ought" cannot be derived from "is", as Mr. Hume kindly pointed out. What we humans should do is not a contingent of how things are.
It is also a mistake to assume that a genetic trait which is not conducive to reproduction must be a malformation. The logic does not follow.
It was pretty simple, actually. I sat them down and talked to them. I basically said, "Look, you guys are taking advantage of the fact that I am almost never home, and you're taking advantage of me. It needs to stop. Now." They apologized, and it hasn't been a problem since. (Granted, this was only a couple of days ago, but still.)
I've taken care of that situation
I received the same reaction from my Uncle in response to a rainbow bracelet I was wearing. I didn't see what the big deal was, since it was only one of about a dozen bracelets I was wearing, but he apparently told my aunt the whole "What he does in the bedroom is his own business, but he doesn't have to flaunt it in front of me."
Whether they are semantically linked is irrelevant if there is no psychological connection being made.
That said, I'll respond to the bit on the semantic relationship which I apparently ignored (it was not intentional).
What you can do, however, is separate which meanings are intended as specifically homophobic and which are intended as a term of general abuse. This distinction is relevant. There is some gray area, but context can dissolve that fairly simply. I probably sound very redundant here, as I've stated this numerous times, but I think the distinction really does matter. The two usages are most definitely linked semantically; I would never argue the contrary. But unless they are psychologically linked, unless it reinforces in the mind of the speaker negative attitudes of homosexuality, it is irrelevant.
Now, it is certainly arguable that it reinforces these notions in the mind of the listener. A child growing up and hearing all sorts of negative things referred to as gay may be troubled by this if that child ends up being gay.
But the difference between the speaker's intention and the listener's perception is important. The listener may make a connection, especially in the situation above, but only if he is a terribly equivocal thinker. And then it is not because of a semantic chain, but because he does not choose to make the conscious differentiation.
A wonderful example of a specifically homophobic usage, I'm sure.
Of course, that isn't a guarantee that you would be adept in linguistics, given the state of American Universities.
I'm sorry they reacted that way.
I actually know a guy like that. He used to be a rather reserved kid; a conservative dresser, the works. That was freshman year of high school. Over the summer he came out, and he returned to school with a flashy new wardrobe, "gay" haircut, piercings, mannerisms, and his voice had leaped up an octave or so and boasted a moderate lisp. A few years later he cooled it down a bit, admitting that he was just acting that way because he thought it was expected.
No.
What the founding fathers would have written is irrelevant. It's what they wrote that matters; and in point of fact, what they did write is that marriage is the domain of the states, not the federal government, so they would not have commented on homosexual marriage anyway.
Provide evidence.
Odd. I know many straight guys who love the show. I know a small handful who refuse to watch it on principle, but the others understand that laughing at gay jokes will not make them gay.
We must live in very different places. Almost every gay man I know--particularly those I went to high school with--are at the very least a Will character, but usually more like Jack. I've met two people who are like Ennis. And I'm one of them.
I'm a little jealous now.
The Holocaust is one of the most well-documented events in history. There is ample uncorrupted evidence that one can easily turn to in order to demonstrate that little if any revisionism has taken place.
Of course he is entitled to think that. We are, in turn, entitled to point out that his belief is blatantly and demonstrably false. Opinions are not sacred.
Why shouldn't we be judgmental when his beliefs contradict established fact? We have every right to judge his opinions as invalid.
And also, being the leader of a nation does not afford one the unique privilege of spouting ******** without censure. Especially when that leader is basically a fascist dictator.
Except that a) he has no evidence or arguments that it has fallen victim to historical revisionism and b) no one uses the Holocaust as an argument to excuse Israel's actions against Palestine.
Karen: "Oh, Wilma. I have so much money."
That never fails to make me literally rofl all over the place.
I wasn't. I'm sorry if it came off that way.
You can be very defensive, you know.
I agree in principle, but in practice I do not think this is the case. In the case of words like "******-rigged", you are correct, insofar as the word "******" has never really diverged from its original meaning. It is arguable that "gay" has.
I'll use another example to illustrate my point. Take the usage of the word "Jew" in popular culture. One may say, "I Jewed this off some guy," or something to that effect. Now, clearly the usage is foundationed in Jewish stereotypes. The meaning is dependent on the root.
Now, some examples of "gay" usage: "That movie was so gay"; "Dude, don't be gay" [in a non-sexual context]; "Homework is gay." The meaning in these examples is in no way related to the homosexual root of the word. It is independent, it has diverged; I think this is extremely relevant, and falls under the same category as words like "xenophobic".
That is true, but note that human and animal sexuality is often very different. Human sexuality is entrenched in social norms, mores, and in a more abstract sense, in language. These are issues which animal sexuality does not seem to run into. Taking this along with the fact that mating patterns are strikingly different (for much the same reasons, actually), and we see that direct comparisons are all but impossible.
I drink beer while watching football, I enjoy bullfighting and boxing and the outdoors. I smoke big cigars and talk about the Red Sox. On the other hand, I am hyper-hygenic, have a shoe fetish, garden (flowerz = roxx0rz), and obsess over Coach purses.
So I have a nice balance, I think.
"Ought" cannot be derived from "is", as Mr. Hume kindly pointed out. What we humans should do is not a contingent of how things are.
It is also a mistake to assume that a genetic trait which is not conducive to reproduction must be a malformation. The logic does not follow.