By Definition?
- Thread starter bybee
- Start date
Buzzword
New member
This is why technical terms are always preferable to slang.
For example, "straight" vs. "gay".
Straight -> unbent, direct, linear
Gay -> happy, joyful, giddy
Webster does not recognize these words as opposites, but due to the human (especially American) predilection with quick, snappy, simplistic slang, they have become opposites in the vernacular.
Especially since too many people place the gravitas of technical terminology upon the simplistic slang.
As opposed to "heterosexual" vs. "homosexual".
Two clearly defined states which are by definition exclusive to one another.
Now, as we learn more about the psychology of human sexuality, these terms become gradually less adequate to describe the full spectrum, but they are at least concrete and not subject to the whims of the social vernacular.
Compare "black" vs. "white".
For example, "straight" vs. "gay".
Straight -> unbent, direct, linear
Gay -> happy, joyful, giddy
Webster does not recognize these words as opposites, but due to the human (especially American) predilection with quick, snappy, simplistic slang, they have become opposites in the vernacular.
Especially since too many people place the gravitas of technical terminology upon the simplistic slang.
As opposed to "heterosexual" vs. "homosexual".
Two clearly defined states which are by definition exclusive to one another.
Now, as we learn more about the psychology of human sexuality, these terms become gradually less adequate to describe the full spectrum, but they are at least concrete and not subject to the whims of the social vernacular.
Compare "black" vs. "white".
As colors, one absorbs light the other reflects light.
I'd like to define people by their words and deeds, especially their deeds and not keep up this constant referencing of sexuality.
We are so much more than the sum of our parts!
Buzzword
New member
Yet we've turned refractions of light into single-syllable racial generalizations.
And if common sense were the norm, we all would.
But we also have a predilection with compartmentalizing people based on a single or limited number of traits.
Race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical sex, gender, interests, hobbies, choice of font......
We seem to be obsessed with being able to say "Oh you're one of THOSE people" after learning something less than the bare minimum about a person.
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger as they were surrounded by several thousand Native Americans on horseback with tomahawks at the ready "Who are you calling 'we' white man?" I don't think like that.
The human condition has found that there is safety in numbers, especially if those numbers are like minded.
Acceptance of diversity is a relatively new behavior on the scene of life.
By definition I believe that "Marriage" is an institution of society wherein one man and one woman unite to form the basic unit of society. There are many units in society but marriage is the foundation unit.
There may be any number of unions by varieties and sorts of persons under the law. These are civil unions, They are not marriage.
Buzzword
New member
Shouldn't this now be filed under Politics?
Or Religion?
I mean, a discussion of general semantics doesn't really fit anywhere, so it makes sense to file it under "...and The Rest".
But you're now taking the thread in a decidedly Political or Religious direction (depending on your choice of justification for the above), so the thread needs to be moved.
...even though it would just be Gay Thread #39348954834589435435834534854353453453485435.