The term "homosexual"

[Haven]

During the past week, I have observed a number of people here using the word "homosexual" in reference to gay and lesbian people. Although some might not realize it, the term is considered offensive and demeaning to gay people. With the site's rule against cursing and offensive language, I find it surprising that such a term is allowed here. Would it be possible to put out a mod announcement clarifying that the term "homosexual(s)" in reference to a person / group of people isn't allowed? Thanks.

[bluethread]

But how does homosexual carry negative connotations? It is just an adjective that describes a person's sexuality. I see nothing offensive about calling a person homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. If I call a gay person a homosexual, am I wrong? No, I am 100% correct. The word gay carries much more connotation than homosexual.

No, it carries different connotations. "Heterosexual" carries the connotation that "love'', as defined by the romantic humanist, is not significant to the thing being defined. Homosexuality is merely the preference for certain nerve endings to be stimulated in a particular way, by a particular kind of person. You do not see "love" as a value in the term, because that connotation is not integral to that activity in your value system. In the romantic humanist's value system, "love" is an integral part of all legitimate relationships. Therefore, when speaking of such relationships, it is presumed that they are "loving" relationships. So, I hope you see that in your value system, the activity and "love" are different, but possibly related. It appears that in the romantic humanist's value system, they are necessarily related. Neither view is inherently offensive, but, to one who is prone to take offense, terms that are not in line with one's value system can be offensive. The scientific humanist just happens to be indifferent with regard to the incorporation of "love" into a sexual relationship. In other words, sex is just physical stimulation. Emotional attachment is a different issue. That detachment of emotions from the essence of an act is based on a value judgment.

[Haven]

But how does homosexual carry negative connotations? It is just an adjective that describes a person's sexuality. I see nothing offensive about calling a person homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. If I call a gay person a homosexual, am I wrong? No, I am 100% correct. The word gay carries much more connotation than homosexual.

It carries negative connotations because it's rarely used by members of the LGBTQ community, but is used heavily by homophobic organizations and hate groups to demonize gay people. The actual etymology of a word doesn't matter, instead, it's all about how it's used.

A simpler reason: "homosexual" is offensive because many of the people to whom it's applied find it offensive. Why is this not enough?

[bluethread]

But how does homosexual carry negative connotations? It is just an adjective that describes a person's sexuality. I see nothing offensive about calling a person homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. If I call a gay person a homosexual, am I wrong? No, I am 100% correct. The word gay carries much more connotation than homosexual.

It carries negative connotations because it's rarely used by members of the LGBTQ community, but is used heavily by homophobic organizations and hate groups to demonize gay people. The actual etymology of a word doesn't matter, instead, it's all about how it's used.

A simpler reason: "homosexual" is offensive because many of the people to whom it's applied find it offensive. Why is this not enough?

"Homophobic" also has a negative connotation and is rarely used those in communities that disapprove of nonconjugal sex. Many of them are aslo offended by that term. Should that term then be forbidden?

[Nickman]

But how does homosexual carry negative connotations? It is just an adjective that describes a person's sexuality. I see nothing offensive about calling a person homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. If I call a gay person a homosexual, am I wrong? No, I am 100% correct. The word gay carries much more connotation than homosexual.

It carries negative connotations because it's rarely used by members of the LGBTQ community, but is used heavily by homophobic organizations and hate groups to demonize gay people. The actual etymology of a word doesn't matter, instead, it's all about how it's used.

A simpler reason: "homosexual" is offensive because many of the people to whom it's applied find it offensive. Why is this not enough?

I haven't seen protesters with signs that say "god hates homosexuals." They usually say " God hates fags, " or " god hates gays." Homosexual is hard to use offensively, compared to gay, and fag. Gay and fag have been used much more offensively than homosexual, and carry many more connotations than homosexual does. The one word that is the least tainted you don't like. That makes no sense.

[Nickman]

But how does homosexual carry negative connotations? It is just an adjective that describes a person's sexuality. I see nothing offensive about calling a person homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. If I call a gay person a homosexual, am I wrong? No, I am 100% correct. The word gay carries much more connotation than homosexual.

No, it carries different connotations. "Heterosexual" carries the connotation that "love'', as defined by the romantic humanist, is not significant to the thing being defined. Homosexuality is merely the preference for certain nerve endings to be stimulated in a particular way, by a particular kind of person. You do not see "love" as a value in the term, because that connotation is not integral to that activity in your value system. In the romantic humanist's value system, "love" is an integral part of all legitimate relationships. Therefore, when speaking of such relationships, it is presumed that they are "loving" relationships. So, I hope you see that in your value system, the activity and "love" are different, but possibly related. It appears that in the romantic humanist's value system, they are necessarily related. Neither view is inherently offensive, but, to one who is prone to take offense, terms that are not in line with one's value system can be offensive. The scientific humanist just happens to be indifferent with regard to the incorporation of "love" into a sexual relationship. In other words, sex is just physical stimulation. Emotional attachment is a different issue. That detachment of emotions from the essence of an act is based on a value judgment.

Homosexual, heterosexual, nor bisexual carry anything that has to do with love. They are just terms that describe a person's sexuality. Why should they include love? Love has to do with emotion. Sexuality describes what you like.

[bluethread]

Homosexual, heterosexual, nor bisexual carry anything that has to do with love. They are just terms that describe a person's sexuality. Why should they include love? Love has to do with emotion. Sexuality describes what you like.

Thus saith the scientific humanist. The romantic humanist was willing to go along with that when romanticism was limited to conjugal relationships. However, now that "neutral" scientifically derived terms have displaced romantic terms connected to conjugal relationships, the romantic humanist objects to the lack of romantic connotation in those terms. The romantic humanist, therefore, is now offended by the terms that they used to embrace, because their goal was not to come up with emotionally "neutral" terms, but emotionally derived terms. In fact, they wish to go back to the culture from which that the term romanticism is derived. This is why I have always opposed bible believers embracing romanticism. That said, as I said, I am willing to use the scientific terminology for arguments sake with the scientific humanists. However, I will not accept it when talking to the romantic humanists, because it is more of a sophisticated social stepping stone for them.

[Ooberman]

Here's another article explaining why "homosexual" is a pejorative and uncivil term:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/ ... gbt-issues

As Equality Matters reported this week, use of the term "homosexual" to refer to gay and lesbian people long ago fell out of favor with most mainstream news outlets, as "homosexual" is commonly used by opponents of LGBT equality — and rarely by advocates.

That quote doesn't mean it's offensive, only not used by the LGBT advocates.

[Kuan]

I've always thought that debates on semantics are ridiculous. This is no different. It does seem though that the press is agreeing to consider the term offensive which means that it will become so. Won't stop me from using it though. I don't think there is much we can do, even if we disagree. It is going to be another one of this politically correct terms.

NY Times - The Decline and Fall of the 'H' Word
Homosexual - The Free Dictionary

I agree that it is ridiculous and makes no sense, but do these politically correct terms ever make sense? I.e. Why do we call blacks African Americans? We don't call whites European Americans.

[Nickman]

Homosexual, heterosexual, nor bisexual carry anything that has to do with love. They are just terms that describe a person's sexuality. Why should they include love? Love has to do with emotion. Sexuality describes what you like.

Thus saith the scientific humanist. The romantic humanist was willing to go along with that when romanticism was limited to conjugal relationships. However, now that "neutral" scientifically derived terms have displaced romantic terms connected to conjugal relationships, the romantic humanist objects to the lack of romantic connotation in those terms. The romantic humanist, therefore, is now offended by the terms that they used to embrace, because their goal was not to come up with emotionally "neutral" terms, but emotionally derived terms. In fact, they wish to go back to the culture from which that the term romanticism is derived. This is why I have always opposed bible believers embracing romanticism. That said, as I said, I am willing to use the scientific terminology for arguments sake with the scientific humanists. However, I will not accept it when talking to the romantic humanists, because it is more of a sophisticated social stepping stone for them.

No, thus saith the definition of the terms. You cannot apply your own definition to these terms to make them offensive, or without love. They speak of one's sexuality. That is all.

[WinePusher]

During the past week, I have observed a number of people here using the word "homosexual" in reference to gay and lesbian people. Although some might not realize it, the term is considered offensive and demeaning to gay people. With the site's rule against cursing and offensive language, I find it surprising that such a term is allowed here. Would it be possible to put out a mod announcement clarifying that the term "homosexual(s)" in reference to a person / group of people isn't allowed? Thanks.

When I read this topic I found it quite absurd and disregarded it as just another crusade by the politically correct zealots. However, after thinking about it I do sympathize with the LGBT community. People should have the right to call themselves whatever they want. If a college wants to change its mascot to a different animal it should have every right to, if a person wants to change their name they should have every right to and if the LGBT community wants people to stop calling them homosexual and use a different word instead, we should respect that. People have the right to identify themselves with whatever word they want, and as a society we should have the decency to respect their desires.