Talk:Gay/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Old talk

I would argue that as the article focuses on the use of gay as it refers to sexuality, the first sentence should reflect that by saying that in addition to gay referring to homosexuals, it also can be used to mean joyous and glad. Such a revision would also emphasize the predominate use of gay as a term for sexuality and its secondary use as a synonym for happy.

"Gay" still means joyous and glad, it's just that the other meaning is more common. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

"This word may safely be used only to mean homosexual." - The Globe and Mail Style Book

Who cares what the "Globe and Mail Style Book" thinks? The other meaning is still valid. Just because you probably wouldn't use it in every day speech to mean "joyous" or "glad," doesn't mean that these are invalid meanings. MB 22:30 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Who care what all the dictionary definitions of a term are? This is an encyclopedia and as such we write about encyclopedic topics - the alternate dictionary definition of the word "gay" doesn't fit the bill (although mentioning it somewhere in the historical development section of this article should be fine). The encyclopedic topic here is the contemporary usage of the term - its older meaning is just a part of that history. The secondary usage should not get first mention. --mav

But we clearly use and understand "gay" to mean joyous and glad in the present day. Everyone is familiar with the refrain "don we now our gay apparel" and does not think that it means we are going to dress up as homosexuals; everyone understands the meaning of the phrase "the gay Nineties"; and particularly there are still "gay blades." --Daniel C. Boyer 13:03 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Gay Paris" with a french accent does not usually mean "homosexual paris" 81.156.177.109 19:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this. This aspect is confusing as a person looking for 'homosexual' would be redirected by the comment at the top, while missing significant content regarding the use of gay to mean homosexual lower down the page.. Perhaps a 'See also' would be more appropriate? Mysteronald 23:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there evidence that the "gay" had a connotation of "promiscuity" as the meaning transitioned from "happy" to "same-sex love"? I heard it as an explanation for how gay suddenly acquired its current definition, but I haven't yet searched for the source of that. --lux 22:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This is such a tiresome debate. The word's usage has changed from "jolly" to "homosexual". That's the sort of thing that happens to words in a living language. Dictionaries reflect that chance in usage through a changed definition. Just as the term "Christian" began as an insult and eventually got subverted into an identity term, this word has changed its meaning. The term "homosexual", it should be noted, has pathologically origins and is offensive to some gay and lesbian people. Some are now proposing the word "queer" as a collective term (e.g., Queer Culture), but this has yet to find a home in the heart of every gay person. --Irishtimes 05:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What debate? I don't think there's any debate. I found the explanation in a history of the word offered by a womens' right and gender equity group. I didn't find the source so that I could investigate, and put it here to see if someone actually know where it comes from. Moreover, dictionaries may reflect changes in word, but they also should find how the word changes. It's partly the reason that Oxford Dictionary became popular, because it told how a word changed in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning. An encyclopaedium, while not a dictionary entry, should offer a sourced and more detailed explanation of how the word acquired its meaning because people would like to know, and such a long history can't be given in the dictionary.

There's nothing wrong with finding out that 'gay' might have first changed meaning into a euphemism for 'promiscuous', because gay might have reflected a wider usage for a large group of people performing on "Broadway" (perhaps later referring to prostitution, "gay old time" perhaps) before the meaning narrowed even more to focusing on the group of men with same-sex desire. That's the way word history can change, along with whether words become more negative or positive.

This would be very interesting to know, because then we can explain the split personality of 'gay' between being happy and being queer. It might have had an intermediate meaning for promiscuous before gay men used it as a code word to describe themselves. It might not be nice to know that 'gay' might be connotated with 'promiscuity', as if promiscuity (or being flaming! and flamboyant) was negative, but I don't think it's inflammatory, though certain religions may take this explanation and use it to skewer gay marriage on the pike.

It's up to everyone. If we can find the source, then we can ask whether we should include it in the dictionary. Then again, maybe it was a wishful thinking of someone. --lux 18:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly does gay mean in the negative non-sexual sense. I understand it to mean "stupid" or "ridiculous", certainly not "confusing" or "malicious" ("disappointing" maybe). Maybe the exact sense varys regionally. In that case I suppose we should just write "bad" or "inferior." - Efghij 16:52 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I prefered what there was there before b/c it sounded more intelligent. I would prefer it just said that it is used in a diragatory sense, b/c you can call anything gay, it is just meant to be a put-down really, not to mean anything specific. MB 19:23 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're right. I've changed the article to reflect that. - Efghij 19:41 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have an idea for new series box called Queer (or maybe LGBT). it would include: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, queer. and also gay_village, rainbow flag, gay rights, heteronormativity --Sonjaaa 13:32, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Article should be retitled Gay (homosexual) and the word "gay" should point to the disambig page.

Recent category changes / revert

I noticed that Beland removed this article from the LGBT category, and that AlexR reverted that change, citing "another annoying removal of categories." Looking at the category structure as it sits now, Homosexuality is a subcategory of LGBT. I'm new here, so perhaps I'm mistaken on the finer points, but my understanding is that an article should generally not be placed in both a category and a corresponding subcategory. It seems to me that the article for "gay" fits more neatly into the Homosexuality category than the much broader LGBT category. Any other thoughts? --Azkar 17:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

in the first paragraph "Gay used as an adjective describes traits associated with gays and lesbians, their culture, or perceived lifestyle." the term lifestyle implies choice, though it is not a choice.

Merge with Homosexuality?

Doesn't this article cover exactly the same subject/concept of homosexuality (as well as discussing the etymology of gay)?

Shouldn't this article be redirected there? Else it should just discuss the etymology (with other stuff removed), in which case:

this should, at least, be made clear
it should be on wiktionary
if it really is deserving of its own article, it should be at etymology of gay.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 14:25, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Rather homosexuality should be merged with gay. Hyacinth 02:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't a noun preferable to an adjective (e.g.: happiness v. happy) as encyclopedias describe concepts? Also homosexuality is less ambiguous given other usage of gay (happy, festive, male-specific (which IME is comonest meaning), deprecatory). Nonetheless I think the two should definitely be merged.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 17:10, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

The term "homosexuality" is also sometimes considered more offensive than "gay". I don't know of any reason an encyclopaedia would prefer to use a noun over an adjective: they both describe concepts. --Axon 13:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. In response to your two points:

Do you have a source to back up your opinion that the noun, homosexuality, is offensive? Which noun would you suggest in its place as being less offensive (e.g.: samesexness, gayness, gay-and-lesbian-ness—none of which, IMO, quite roll of the tongue)? I would have thought that, if anything, gay would be more offensive (though, in my experience of their usage, neither is more than the other). Homosexuality was never coined as an insult (being from the latin for same sex), and is never used in that way, AFAICC, today.
They may both describe the concept, but only one directly refers to the concept—happiness or homosexuality refer to concepts as they are nouns. For this reason, it is the policy of Wikipedia (and all other encyclopedias that I have seen) to head articles with nouns as opposed to adjectives.

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 20:23, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

A noun names a concept, an adjective describes it; the concept related to 'gay' is 'gayness', or homosexuality. I can't really see the objection to merging Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which objection are you referring to? There are more than one objections above. --Axon 13:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are missing my point: there is, AFAIK, no specific Wikipedia injunction against the creation of adjective-entitled articles. For example, the Queer article describes the seperate cultural phenomena of queerness. The term Queer is used for the title there, as here, because it is the more commonly used term: few use the words "gayness" and "queerness". "Gay" and "queer" are the common usage. --Axon 13:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The phrase “I can't see the objection to x” doesn't pick out one objection; it means that I can'tsee any objection.
You said that you didn't know of any reason that an encyclopædia would prefer to use nouns, and made a claim about nouns and adjectives with regard to concepts; I offered a reason, and corrected the claim. I'm not sure how I could be said to have missed your point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were two objections here, one is on the subject of whether an adjective can be used as the title of an article and another, which you ignored, is that homosexuality itself can be an offensive, POV term.
Please read my comments which explain why I believe you missed my point. --Axon 14:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't ignore it, it's just that I think that it's very, very weak. The term 'homosexual' is doubtless thought to be offensive by those who dislike homosexuality, but then 'gay' is also used as an insult by adolescents and pre-adolescents. When I said that I really can't see objection to merging, I really meant it.
The point to which you seem to be referring is one that didn't appear in the message to which I replied; I didn't miss that point, I just didn't address it. As a matter of fact I disagree with it, mildly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you did ignore it by not mentioning it. You might think it 'weak' and disdain it, but there are plenty of people who consider it to be quite important and we must discuss issues in a neutral manner and that includes article headings (see NPOV). There is no hiding from the fact that the use of the term "homosexuality" is POV itself and that is and will be the primary objection to merging this article to homosexuality.
I believe I did raise the issue when I said "I don't know of any reason an encyclopaedia would...". Regardless, this argument over what was and wasn't said distracts from my original point. --Axon 17:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start again.

You commented: “I don't know of any reason an encyclopaedia would prefer to use a noun over an adjective: they both describe concepts.” I replied: “A noun names a concept, an adjective describes it; the concept related to 'gay' is 'gayness', or homosexuality.” That is, they don't both describe concepts; an adjective does, a noun doesn't.
You said: “The term "homosexuality" is also sometimes considered more offensive than "gay".” First, that maybe so (I've never come across it), but it shouldn't affect the issue unless one or other term is genuinely a term of abuse; neither of these terms is. (I was brought up as a Catholic, and some pupils at my (non-catholic) school used “Roman Catholic” as a term of abuse; I grew up talking of the religion as Catholicism, and finding “Roman Catholicism” slightly offensive. I was wrong. Similarly, anyone who thinks that “homosexuality” is wrong, however some homophobes use the word. Someone who uses “homosexual” as an insult would use any word referring to homosexuality as an insult. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How does an adjective not describe a concept? In the example of 'gay' it describes the concept of being gay which is what this article describes. All words describe concepts. Again, rather than getting bogged down in semantics would you like to address my original point here: that there is AFAIK no policy that an encyclopaedia should not have an article on an adjective.

Obsviously, the term "gay" used as you describe is offensive for vastly different reasons. 'Homosexuality' is sometimes considered offensive because of its clinical basis in the original patholigisation of same-sex attraction. Whilst 'gay' can be used as an offensive term, the term homosexuality is in dispute and hence POV. See User:Hyacinth/Style_guide for more information. --Axon 21:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I said that an adjective does describe a context; I was, however, writing to hastily — it generally doesn't. The adjectives 'gay' and 'homosexual' describe behaviour, people, actions, etc., but not concepts.

"Gay" also describes a cultural phenomena and identity which is a concept. --Axon 10:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for the use of 'homosexual' in clinical contexts — so what? It didn't start that way, most people don't use it that way, most people aren't even aware that it's used that way. Unless you think that offensiveness is divorced from intent, your claim here surely doesn't stand. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think anyone who has read about the topic realizes that gay and homosexual are used in different ways. It is also obvious that offensiveness is divorced from intent, since it depends on reception and interpretation. Hyacinth 00:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's surely a difference between whether a term is genuinely offensive and whether some person or persons is offended by it. Are you saying that Roman Catholicism should be renamed because some Catholics find it offensive? The problem here is that, with regard to homosexuality, every term can be and has been used offensively, and every term can and has caused someone offence. Moreover, which term is preferred is a matter of fashion; 'queer', for example, has gone within a decade or so from being a 100% term of abuse to being the title of university courses (as if universities had departments of 'nigger studies').

In any case, the idea that there should be two separate articles simply because people disagree about which of two terms is the more offensive is peculiar to say the least. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comments of Roman Catholicism are not valid: there could very well be an argument to change the name of Roman Catholicism if it is offensive because, if a substantial number of people object to the term, it would be POV to use that term and thus more appropriate to settle on a another title. That discussion is irrelevant to the topic of 'homosexuality' versus 'gay' because the issues are different, of course.

You might find it "peculiar" - although arguments from incredulity/ignorance seem falacious to me - but there is a sizeable body of people who consider the use of the term "homosexuality" biased with its implicit implications of pathology and mental illness. In a way the argument of offensiveness is irrelevant: from this we can gather it is non-neutral term and there are more neutral options.

There is also a another argument that gay and homosexuality describe seperate things. Gay also describes the cultural phonemena surrouding homosexuality identity. Queer has been re-appropriated by the gay community and is also a seperate cultural phonemena. --Axon 10:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed: Simple vote solution for merger as well as continued discussion, just to help editors track consensus or lacktherof See below--Tznkai 16:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Off topic/ POV paragraph

The second paragraph (The term gay...) starts off well, but quickly veers into a discussion on the LGBT community, which is not what this page is about. It also quickly loses NPOV after this point; even if this page is not somehow merged with another, this paragraph should probably go. Turnstep 13:45, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. It looks like there were a series of edits by an anonymous user (216.231.62.12) that should probably all be deleted ... --Azkar 23:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism alert More IP edits

I have been reverting edits by an anonomous I.P. address user who is deleting comments and adding POV stuff such as the suggestion that Hitler was a famous gay person, but of course, gay causes won't acknowledge that, etc. I am not a writer on ths subjects, just have it on my vandalism watch as a WP admin. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 05:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

HEY! What about the use of the word gay just as a derogatory term, not just as a sexuality reference. ie:("this class is gay") Plus, there is a difference between being a homophobe (hating gays and lesbians or being afraid of them) and just plain being disgusted by them or having a religious disposition towards the subject. It seems like the word homophobe is just a cop out to defend those who have an "alternative lifestyle" . And so what if this is a POV, its a discussion page.

Also, why do people try to find a gay gene. theat seems stupid and irrelevant. Now, this is bordering on a POV, but lets just say, that God destroyed one, no, two cities way back in BC times. Now, imagine that he destroyed those cities because the inhabitants were not following his law. Now, imagine that he created those inhabitants with the disposition to like the same sex. That does not seem right, especially for a loving awesome god. This may come off as POV, but considering that none of the Bible's prophecies and statements have been proven wrong, and that many have been proven 100% correct, also many others are strongly supported by physical evidence; it shows that it is much more of a fact than an opinion. Just think about that for a while, don't get angry.

I can't help but respond to that last post; I feel that a lifetime of studying the theology of homosexuality, not to mention two doctorate degrees in theology, give me the background to adequately respond to this nonsense.

First: The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not a story about homosexuality; it is a story about inhospitality. Please note Ezekiel 16:49:

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Long before the two angels went to retrieve Lot, God had already decided Sodom and Gomorrah would be destroyed because of their inhospitality to others. In fact, Abraham appears prominently in a passage where he debates with God on behalf of Sodom, and God promises him that if ten righteous men can be found in the city, it will not be destroyed. (Genesis 18:16-33) Why on Earth would Abraham, an upstanding man, the father of the People of God, beg God not to destroy a city full of known homosexuals? Because their sin wasn’t loving other men, it was lack of hospitality.

As evidenced by Abraham’s response to the three men who visit him (to announce that he will be a father), there was a very strict code of hospitality that was to be observed with regard to travelers. Treating travelers with hospitality was seen as a moral imperative, equal to giving hospitality to God himself. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah had violated the code of hospitality, and in doing so, rejected God, setting the stage for their destruction.

After God made the decision to destroy the cities, he sent two angels to enter the city to retreive Lot and his family. Why do the angels go to the city? To retrieve Lot and his wife, because God has already decided to destroy the city. After the angels enter the city, the men of the city seek to rape them. Again, why were the angels there? Because the city was already going to be destroyed.

The men of the city assemble outside Lot’s house and announce that they want to rape the two visitors. What does Lot offer these men, the supposedly homosexual men of Sodom and Gomorrah? His virgin daughters. But if all the men of the city were rabid homosexuals, why offer them two women? What self-respecting homosexual would accept a woman in the place of the man he wished to rape? But, if the men could be expected to accept women, then were they really homosexual? Or were they simply evil men who wanted to do any evil thing they could conceive of? What does Ezekiel tell us? They were “arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned”; they were evil men.

Second: None of the Bible’s statements have been proven wrong? What about the competing Creation narratives in Genesis? Did God create man and woman at the same time by speaking them into existence (Genesis 1:26-27) or did he create man out of clay, blow the breath of life into him, and create woman later? (Genesis 2:7)

Also, how many sons did God have? Jesus is “the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) Adam is the “son of God.” (Luke 3:38) But Jesus is “the only begotten son.” (John 3:16) So which is it? Does he have one son or two?

What happened to Judas? Did he hang himself? (Matthew 27:5) Or, did his entrails burst out of him? (Acts 1:18)

What about the Holy Spirit? Did the apostles receive the Holy Spirit on Pentecost after Jesus had ascended? (Acts 1:8, 2:4) Or did they receive it when Jesus breathed on them? (John 20:22)

For that matter, where did Jesus ascend from? Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) or Bethany? (Luke 24:50)

Third: In re: physical evidence; What about Mark 16:18, wherein one is not killed by the bite resulting from handling poisonous snakes. (No anti-venom, that would be cheating, the power of God only!)

Also from Mark 16:18, what about drinking poisonous liquids and not dying as a result.

On a similar note, could someone please produce the 2000+ year-old still-living apostle, as Jesus clearly said that some of them would not die before he returned. (Matthew 16:28)

Methinks there's a bit more study to be done here. Essjay 11:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Slang as opposed to correct terminology

The word "gay" in the sense of "homosexual" is slang. I haven't been using wiki long enough to know for sure, but is it valid to have the main article about a subject under a slang heading? For example, is it valid to have the main article about the penis under the word cock? I would suggest not, and therefor the article entitled "gay" should be about the human emotion "happiness", with perhaps a mention that it is also current slang for "homosexual"

This article is about the term gay itself - its origins, appropriateness, etc. The article on homosexuality is at homosexuality. I see no problems with this arrangement. --Azkar 16:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there are at least two meanings of the word Gay, and to have the article "Gay" discussing just one of those definitions is quite obviously showing a bias towards that particular definition. Wiki is supposed to be neutral. How can it be when a word that has at least two meanings isnt sent directly to a disambiguation page, but rather to a page concentratiting on one particular definition?

Actually theres a bigger problem. If the article is about the word "gay" and its etymolygy etc, it ought not to be here anyhow, as it is no more than a dictionary entry. Thus in this form it should be in wiktionary. 80.177.152.156

It's arguable that it's no longer slang; it's the preferred term, definitely preferred over "homosexual," and it's the word many people most identify with. I think your claim that the article is biased because it talks about the sexuality definition of "gay" rather than the emotional one is specious. Exploding Boy 22:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Check also the following:

homosexual: As a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. As an adjective, of or relating to sexual and affectional attraction to a member of the same sex. Use only if “heterosexual” would be used in parallel constructions, such as in medical contexts. For other usages, see gay and lesbian. (from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalist Association [1])

Offensive Terminology to Avoid

OFFENSIVE: "homosexual" (as a n. or adj.)

PREFERRED: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.)

Please use "lesbian" or "gay man" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it has been adopted by anti-gay extremists to suggest that lesbians and gay men are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered - notions discredited by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." (from Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [2])

Wikipedia usually sticks to what people prefer to call themselves - there is no reason to make an exception here. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Benedict XVI, but find him under Antichrist, or have similar, not quite appropriate entries. -- AlexR 23:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Usually maybe, certainly not all the time. See the article retarded for details. Being disabled myself I can assure you no disabled person would choose to call themselves retarded or a retard! As for Benedict XVII being under Antichrist....methinks npov might come into play there! ;0).....actually quoting from glaad isnt exactly npov either

80.177.152.156

I don't think 'gay' to refer to homosexuals is any more slang than African-American is. Nor does Merriam-Webster. Jliberty 16:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately Retarded is a redirect, not an article. For more than GLAAD, see also:

http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-glbt-defined.html

Urges "no labels". That would make the page difficult to find.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/0,5817,184913,00.html

Does not give any opinion on "homosexual" that I can find.

http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html

Okay.

http://newswatch.sfsu.edu/guide/g.html

404.

On both sides, this is a sterile argument. First, there is no "bias" in "gay" being about, erm, gays. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be what you'd expect to find under each particular title. Given that this is not a dictionary, the average reader would expect to find this article, so no problem there. WP has something of a first in, best dressed policy: if you wanted to write an article about gay (adjective meaning happy), you'd need to disambiguate from this page simply because this one was made first (there are exceptions to this rule but they're reasonably rare and happen in cases where the new article genuinely is about something more well known). The argument about not using "homosexual" is a bit lame. Sure it has "negative connotations". So do "queer", "gay", "lesbian", "black", "white", "man"... actually, just about any word you could use to describe people. But it's most commonly used without any pejorative sense. I'm not sure that there's any particular need to pander to minority demands about language -- this would be to push a particular POV and I don't think we should support that. Besides, "gay" and "homosexual" do not have the same lexical field exactly: a rabbit might have homosexual relations with another but I'm not sure you'd describe it as "gay" because the latter word has baggage that is not at all appropriate for rabbits. Grace Note 05:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suffering Sappho! As a gay person (not a gay rabbit, mind you) I'd like to offer my opinion: I'm not offended by "homosexual." I have a student assistant (TA) who insists on referring to her computer as "homosexual" when it misbehaves (as in "this computer is so homosexual" instead of "this computer is so gay"), and I'm not offended by that either. I don't generally refer to myself as "homosexual" because, well, it's rather clinical. When I write professionally about homosexuality, I use "homosexual" when the subject is formal, and "gay" or "gay and lesbian" when it is not. I'm a member of the subject minority, and there's no need to pander to me: Call me a homo or call me gay, I couldn't care less.

If I worked with someone who "insists on referring to her computer as "homosexual" when it misbehaves" I would ask her if she minded if I referred to my computer as Jewish when it misbehaves (or black, or female). It is not only offensive to equate homosexuality with misbehavior, it is startlingly insensitive. Jliberty 16:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That said, I think the article should remain under "gay," and I defer to Azkar's argument. Further, anyone looking for the term "gay" meaning "happy" will find the right article through the disambig link at the top of the article; I can't tell you how many times I've had to follow a disambig to find the article I was looking for. It's part of using Wikipedia, and they'll just have to suck it up and make the two extra clicks. Frankly, outside of listening to "My Old Kentucky Home" before the Kentucky Derby, I haven't heard anyone use "gay" to mean happy in a very long time. If Stephen Foster rises from the dead and needs to look up the meaning of "tis summer, the people are gay," I'm sure he can follow the disambig. Leave the article where it is. Essjay (talk) 07:16, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Redirection Canceled

Until I see consensus to redirect/merge/etc, I am restoring this article in full. Discuss here please--Tznkai 16:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the last redirect attempt (to gay (disambiguation)) wasn't very good at all. I see there's been discussion about merging this into homosexuality, but I don't see that as being a very good idea. Homosexuality is an in-depth article on the subject of homosexuality. Gay is not about homosexuality - it is about gay as a term. It talks about the origins of the term, usage, appropriateness, etc. Look at Category:LGBT terms (and the sub-cat Category:LGBT argot). There's certainly precedent for having separate articles on this sort of thing. --Azkar 16:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thats why I reversed it. Consider moving this article to Gay (term?) and redirecting gay to gay (disambig)?
  - I think I could live with that compromise if there really is a lot of opposition to the current arrangement. --Azkar 17:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that gay and homosexual are two very different concepts, at least in the view of many. Homosexuality is basically a description of sexual acts, and furthermore used as a description of many of those participating in them, while gay has a far wider menaing. It is also entirely possible to be gay without being homosexual, compare Homosexuality and transgender. I also don't think that this use of gay can be considered "slang" at all; it may have been a non-standard use when it was first used predominantly to describe gay people, but it is hardly non-standard now. It can also not be compared to "cock" because it is not offensive. Not to mention the fact that it is rather likely that today "gay" is predominantly seen as describing gay people, and not "happiness" or people with that last name. Hence the type of disambig we are having, "For other uses see ..." is perfectly appropriate. -- AlexR 17:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Duplicated article now?

Now it seems that we have two articles, one gay and one gay (homosexual), the second one being a copy of the first, without the disambig notice. Also, links are already changed, which is not a good idea at all, since there is no consensus whatever. -- AlexR 17:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple of the wiki-link changes (see [3] for all of them). I don't have time to go through them all, right now, though. Obviously, there was no consensus to create this new article. --Azkar 17:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting the rest as we speak, and have deleted the duplicate Gay (homosexual).--Bishonen | talk 18:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A cut-and-paste copy of this talk page is still at Talk:Gay (homosexual). I imagine that can go, too. --Azkar 20:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Going, going, gone. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am the anon user (actually called Jaie) who created the "gay (homosexual)" page. I dont understand what the problem is. The word "gay" is clearly ambiguous, as it could mean happy or homosexual amonst other things. Therefor it clearly needs two pages, one talking about the emotion, and the other talking about the sexual persuasion. The only way you can do this is by linking the word "gay" to a disambiguation page, with links to pages discussing the two topics above.

There's already gay (disambiguation) which this page links to. --Azkar 19:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I may also point out that Wikipedia:Disambiguation lists several ways of dealing with words with several meanings, not just the one the IP proposes. Also, gay in the sense of happy is an adverb, and adverby usualy don't get their own articles. Not to mention that I seriously doubt that many people would search for "gay" when they want to hear about happiness. -- 19:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
1. Surely a disambiguation page should point to an article, not the other way round? Otherwise, you are in effect saying "this is the only definition of this word that has any merit, but if you REALLY want to go look at some other definition you can go to the disambig. page"
  - It depends on the topic. In this case, this is the primary meaning of the word gay. It hasn't always been, but it is now. If I say to someone, "I am gay," the thought wouldn't even enter their head that I could mean that I'm in a good mood. As pointed out above, Wikipedia:Disambiguation lists several differant disambiguation schemes that are available, depending on the circumstances. See Rome for another example of a primary topic that has a link to a separate disambiguation page. --Azkar 21:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  - I sorta take your point......but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I dont know wiki's policy, but I personally feel that all meanings of a word are equal and valid, even if one is currently the primary meaning. As you say, gay now has a different primary meaning, but whose to say what the primary meaning will be in fifty years time. I have little doubt that people who used this word in its original form say 100 yrs ago, would be astounded by the meaning we attach to it today! I also take your point about there being different ways to disambiguate, however I can't help feeling it would be easier if there were only one method, which would render this whole discussion largely pointless! :-)

Actually, there are good reasons for the various kinds of disambiguation pages, and you will have to live with the fact that most people like it that way. Also, should the term shift its meaning significantly in the future, there is no reason why the problem can't be solved then with a different kind of disambiguation. -- AlexR 04:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

1. I think you mean an adjective, not an adverb, but that notwithstanding, gay in the sense of a homosexual is also an adjective surely? "A gay man" is the same sentence structure whether or not the person to whom you are referring is either homosexual or happy (or both!).

Indeed, adjective, and I am pretty sure that is what I wanted to write - but I always sucked at keeping the two apart, in four languages. Grammaticaly, that is, I use them correctly usualy. Anyway, "Gay" in the sense of homosexual or male/male or however you want to define it is pretty often used as a noun, although indeed when refering to people most prefer the adjective use. OTOH, using gay as a noun in the sense of happiness is pretty rare, to put it mildly. Guess my argument therefore mostly stands. And seriously, you should get yourself a username, but even if you don't, there is nothing that keeps you from at least signing your articles with -- ~~~~ . -- AlexR 04:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

What the hell??

This article is a mess. The intro is confusing, unencyclopaedic, and factually incorrect. What's going on here? Exploding Boy 04:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit rambly, isn't it? Which bits do you think belong elsewhere? --FOo 04:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup request: Word origins

This section is entirely out of sync with the Wiktionary article on the etymology. -- Beland 06:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This article claims that "Originally, the word gay exclusively meant "happy". In contemporary usage, however, that meaning is unusual; the term is usually synonymous with "homosexual." " However I dispute the truth of this statement. Wiktionary gives several meanings for gay

happy, joyful, and lively. festive, bright, colourful. homosexual. typical of homosexual appearance or behaviour. (pejorative - slang) boring, unappealing, bad, of low quality, annoying, unfair This game is gay. Let's play something else.

And an old Oxford Dictionary (printed 1975) I have also lists several meanings for gay:

Full of or disposed to or indicating mirth, light-hearted, sportive, airy, offhand; (slang): cheeky, impertinent; (euphem): dissolute, immoral, living by prostitution; showy, brilliant, bright-coloured, finely dressed

This edition of OED does not list the homosexual meaning of the word at all.

It does; homosexuality just wasn't something dictionary writers referred to directly back then. (euphem) stands for euphemism -- dissolute and immoral were, in the editors' minds, nearly synonymous with homosexuality. (It's hard to remember how much has changed in only 3 decadefs.) Tlogmer 07:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, if the statement "Originally, the word gay exclusively meant "happy". " is true, how come OED lists all these other old meanings, and does not specify "happy" as one of its many meanings? Certainly there was never just one "exclusive" meaning of the term. This page is in need of some error fixing I think. MinorEdit 05:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Full of or disposed to or indicating mirth." Close enough to "happy", but I'll change it. Tlogmer 07:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Multiple articles

Why is there a page called "Gay", a page called "Homosexuality", and a page called "Lesbian?" Surely these pages can be merged somewhow. Frenchman113 00:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Because these are three different words which do mean different things? Sure you could merge them -- the same way you could merge Ford, General Morors and Mercedes Benz. They may be similiar, but not same, so maybe we better keep them that way. Read the articles if you want to know the differences. -- AlexR 05:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

On "gay" as pejorative.

The last statement says that "the vast majority of gay people are opposed to use of the pejorative 'gay'" and that it is "offensive to most politically aware people." Is there some sort of study that this is based on, rather than merely being based on opinion and personal anectdotal evidence?

-

There's no study. There's also no study on whether americans use the word "american" as a perjorative, or whether jewish people go around saying "what a jew" about stingy people. Tlogmer 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

-

If that is the case, I would consider that an inappropriate statement to have in the article, as it is not objective. Really, even with a study, the first portion "vast majority of gay people are opposed..." would be appropriate, but "offensive to most politically aware people" seems to inherrently be making a value judgement.

Cleanup?

I'm willing to give the clean-up a whirl. I worked for the University of Ottawa Pride Centre for a number of years and did a lot of their sensitivity training, and I have an English degree to boot. Please, by all means, constructive discussion is appreciated, I'm just going to try and put the article in sensible order. I'm also removing the link to www.sataniclust.com... the article is okay, but I'm sure everyone wants to relate gay to satan and I'm sure someone can find something a little more academic. --Waterspyder 18:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I adjusted the first paragraph a bit... I think it is more efficient and less wordy. Waterspyder, if you need any help, let me know. This article could really use some cleaning. There are issues in this discusison that appear to be unresolved too. Perhaps this would be a good time to resovle them. --Robby 01:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutlely correct. I tried to weed out a lot of the repetition in the article.. how many times does sexual self-identification need to come up? I also removed some things like sexual orientation versus sexual preference since by linking to sexual orientatation it becomes possible to see that entire discussion. I do not mind the trimming of the intro at all, honestly, the original was way too long, and short is good! I'm up for some discussion, so what is item number one on the agenda? --Waterspyder 02:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Waterspyder, I'm glad we're in agreement and I hope we can clean this article up. I totally agree with you on the sexual orientation issue. I think this also applies to the 'Gay Community and the World' section of this article. There's already a whole article called "Gay community." So, does this section need to be merged with that article or just removed (assuming that the article covers at least the same material. It seems to be a bit off topic. I think it's ok to mention 'Gay Community' and link to it. What do ya think? --Robby 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the long delay... I went to take a peek, and you're right, that section definitely makes more sense on gay community than it does on this page. So I'll start by importing the relevent information to the new article. --Waterspyder 05:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries on the long delay. Glad to see you're learning the ropes. I have only recently begun to learn as well. What other suggestions do you have on getting this article cleaned up? --Robby 05:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I already moved material over to the gay community page, so I think I'll take it off of here today. I mean, that's a really good start. I think there has to be a better way of organizing the use of the word "gay". I think the page's primary purpose is to define the word "gay" in it's extraordinary complexity, (differentiate it versus homosexual, denotation and connotations). If it were just the denotations then this would be easy. Maybe I'll have a better idea after I read terminology of homosexuality. --Waterspyder 20:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Waterspyder, that gay community section looks so much better. What a great start! I agree. This article is about the word/term "gay" and it's 'extraordinary complexity' as you put it. I'll read terminology of homosexuality too. I was thinking that maybe we could find a word article with complexity similar to this one to see how that one is done. There doesn't seem to be a very good template on how to explain a word like "gay". Just a thought. --Robby 22:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a post earlier, but then when I hit send, I discovered the servers were down. My suggestions were to have three headings. Etymology including "Word Origin" and "Folk Etymology". The second heading would be Proper Usage including "Sexual Orientation", "Gay Community" and "Descriptor". "Sexual Orientation" should also have "Self-Identification" and "Selecting the Appropriate Term". The final heading would be "Improper Usage" and include "Pejorative". How does that sound? --Waterspyder 01:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Improper usage" seems non-neutral (though of course I agree that it's improper). Tlogmer 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Valid point though! I guess we could call the entire heading "Pejorative Usage". Maybe change "Proper Usage" to "Commonly Accepted Usage" or "Accepted Usage". It's really funny to write something, that even if you slip and insert a POV that no one will really argue with, you're still not supposed to do it. --Waterspyder 15:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

timeline of "gay" as pejorative?

the article claims the pejorative usage of gay = anything negative is 1990's. this is totally untrue; i remember this usage when i was in grade school, c. 1980.

Benwing 03:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it fair to propose a change then to include the origin of the pejorative use to be the 1980s? --Waterspyder 01:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reference for this timeline that isn't original research. Guan aco 15:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

what proof is there that the perjorative usage of gay wasn't used before the 1980's? what is the first known perjorative usage in a media format? how can you tell that it wasn't used perjoratively when the word first came to be used as homosexual, when the idea of homosexuality itself was viewed as negative? i'd like to see you take into account also that gay can mean an attribute man who is narcissistic about his attractiveness not just to women, but specifically to other men, and that the whole "perjorative" usage listed doesn't even take this into account, and that some people use gay to mean this, inappropriately, some people use it perjoratively, and that its the stereotype itself that is the perjorative part.---DEV

Cleanup Complete

So does anyone else have any suggestions for the clean-up, or is this finally a well-structured article and entitled to remove the tag? --Waterspyder 21:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is pretty good. I added some more wiki links. Are there any other things that anyone can think of that this article should or should not cover? I think it would be cool if we could have a picture of something in this article. Like a button or something like that. Or is that stupid? It looks good, though. Good job Waterspyder! :-) --RobbyPrather 02:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures are good and are visually stimulating. This being said, we don't want anything that is not directly related to the article. This is not the article on homosexuality (which is in dire need of help, holy POV), whis is more on the modern societal usage of gay. Now, something like "That's so gay" would fit in the pejorative section, or some other witty caatchphrase. I'm sure there are other things that would fit, I'm just not being creative enough right now.--Waterspyder 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking... the Etymology section has the text: "Sometimes, histories of word origins..." in italics. Do we really need this? Is it a quote? Why is it in italics? Just a few questions. :-) --RobbyPrather 03:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it doesn't need to be in italics. I think that the statement is just trying to bring to light that the root of this word was very little bearing on the meaning today. I removed the italics, and it could be useful to have the statement reworded a bit for clarity.--Waterspyder 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Waterspyder, I think this article does look much, much better and I agree with your removing the clean-up tag. Good work. --RobbyPrather (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

The article says "Other people, however, consider gay to be a matter of self-identification and homosexual to refer to sexual activity ). By using these definitions, a person could be gay but not homosexual, or homosexual but not gay. "

So could you be straight but not heterosexual, or heterosexual but not straight? Just curious. -- 65.27.246.163 08:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, few would object to an asexual person taking the "straight" label. Straight could also apply to someone who is in the closet. The term originally applied to people who have "stopped being gay", usually through an ex-gay program.

Heterosexual but not straight is a bit more tricky. If the -sexual terms refer to behavior, and gay, straight, etc. to identity, a bi or queer person sexually active only with members of a different sex could be "heterosexual but not straight". Guan aco 16:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I did a lot of sensitivity training in University and helped run the queer centre on campus for 4 years, and I learned a lot while I was there. A classic example I give is that a female friend of mine is married to a cross-dresser. Is she heterosexual? Yes. Is she straight? Not if you ask most people. Is she queer? Not quite, but we'll take her anyway.

Similarly, some people might think the label MSM (Men who have sex with men) is a little useless, but if you ask a man "Are you a man who has sex with men?" then he will be more likely to answer in the affirmative than if you asked "Are you gay?" or "Are you a homosexual?". Everyone has their own feeling on what the words actually mean, and different geographical regions have different connotations on the word. Heck, the concept of "gay" or "homosexual" doesn't exist in some cultures. There is no homophobia, but there is also no outward homosexuality (it still happens, but is never ever discussed).

I concur with the way the self-identification section is written. Hell, some days I still identify as a lesbian despite being engaged to a man (in a country where same-sex marriage is legal...for now). --Waterspyder 20:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Preventing vandalism

Any ideas on how to make the notice at the beginning of the article more effective? It seems like it should convey to novice users (1) the fact that editing wikipedia is allowed (i.e. that they haven't somehow hacked the system) (2) respectability and official-ness (a sort of giulianni-esque grafitti prevention technique) (3) the fact that users are not completely anonymous, even if they're not logged in. Tlogmer 12:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC) To expand point 2: The notice shouldn't reveal the fact that vandalism of this article is very common -- it should stay as far as possible from saying things like "don't write 'Bob Smith is Gay!'" because this explicit condemnation actually serves to normailize vandalism. The notice should make vandalism seem beyond the pale, not even mentionable. Tlogmer 22:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternate Spellings

... still do not illiminate the pejoritive usage, or offensiveness. Attempted to document that. --Chèvredansante 15:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Christmas to us

I noticed we seem to have had a lot of vandals for christmas. Not just one here but other articles too, although gay-related is a popular target.

Does anyone else think that's sad, or is it just me? Tom 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

it's just you

Strange how all the homophobic people here really don't seem to take to the idea of revealing their identity? Secretly gay themselves, anyone think?

Definitely possible 1. After all, homophobes and other bigots are yellow-bellied subhuman cowards by definition. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

love sex