DAN R. writes:

I guess I’m a little late coming to this realization, but I’ve just learned that the very word “homosexual” is regarded as a politically-incorrect slur.

Laura writes:

I guess people will lose their jobs and be consigned to the American Gulag for even suggesting that the perversion which has caused the premature deaths of millions of men is not “gay.”

“Gay” is a euphemism, invented for no other reason but to disguise the truth. It reeks of dishonesty and thought control. “Gay” is the last term one would use for a man who has just had lethal germs disseminated in his bloodstream or an adolescent boy who has just been sodomized. If “gays” were really gay, they would not feel this hypersensitivity to language.

— Comments —

Buck writes:

When I read Jeremy Peters article, I jumped to a conclusion. I thought: homosexual apologetics. It’s actually more like presuppositional homosexual apologetics. Peters writes as if the only logical and reasonable conclusion is that “gay” is good for us all. He presupposes that it is our rational thinking that will bring us all, a thinking society, out of the “deviant” darkness of “homosexuality” to the “joy” and truth of “gay.” Peters, I presupposed, has the “sensibility” of a “joyful” homosexual. I surmise that he quietly, but proudly, self-identifies as “gay”. His article is a well written homosexual apologetic that doesn’t announce or readily appear to be a “gay” screed, but rather to be a reasonably articulated history of “old-fashioned” sensibilities finally righting themselves. “Gay is good” because it will “strip away” the negative association that “homosexual” has with sex. “Substitute the word ‘gay’ for the [adjective] ‘homosexual’…and the terms suddenly become far less loaded, so that the ring of disapproval and judgment evaporates.” It’s enlightened “vocabulary instruction.”

It’s so simple. Use “gay” and disapproval and judgment evaporate. As I wrote here, these substitutions don’t come about naturally. They are studied and tactical.  

Peters appears to have been outed in 2008 in Our Boys On The Bus, an article about homosexual reporters on the campaign trail, published at out.com. Who knows if it’s true. If it isn’t and he is not a homosexual, then he certainly is a flaming liberal. If he is a homosexual, then he is a charlatan “journalist.” 

Peters writes: “And last year, when Jason Collins became one of the first professional male athletes to reveal he was gay.” A homosexual doesn’t reveal that he’s “gay,” he reveals that he’s a homosexual and he chooses to declare himself “gay.” Sorry, that sounds judgemental and disapproving.

Laura writes:

One problem with the term “homosexual” is that it is used in different senses. For some, a homosexual is someone who engages in homosexual activity. For others, anyone who has homosexual desires is homosexual regardless of whether he acts upon those desires or not.

Bert Perry writes:

Okay, so Katy Perry (no known relation) gets in trouble for singing “U R so gay,” we get in trouble for saying homosexuals or queers…..Okay, then, “sodomites” it is.

Buck writes:

It’s a sticky wicket, the war between words. As you have well explained, the proper term of use is sodomite. It is the act itself that must be condemned. As I have said, I will use “sodomite” or “sodomy” when necessary, surgically, when I find an opportunity. But I’m not tough enough, or committed enough to use it in ordinary conversation. I will be cautious and pick my spots. I am, after all, negotiating life like a modern liberal, which makes me part of the very problem that I must seem hell bent of so scrutinizing.

It seems, sometimes, that the more that I think that I understand about what is wrong, the more reluctant I am to speak the truth to the very people with whom I have the opportunity and the slightest chance of possibly influencing. It’s like seeing the problem growing daily, so overwhelmingly large and intractable, that if I breach it, it will bust open and bury me. I stay in the tall grass in camouflage, waiting and waiting…all the while getting “smarter” and correspondingly useless. God forbid that I bother someone other than me.

Laura writes:

These battles over words are ultimately trivial.

We are dealing with a systemic breakdown. Homosexual liberation is merely a symptom of this breakdown.

Buck writes:

I disagree that the battle over words is ultimately trivial. The thrust of what I have argued here is that a use of the proper terms, and the denial of the false terms, is fundamental to any ability to resist in our public forum, just as you have so well argued for the use of “sodomy” rather than the ambiguous “homosexual” and certainly the lie of “gay.” “Sodomy” focuses the mind on the particular and not the person or persona. It leaves no wiggle room. You never hear a “gay” spokesman, a public policy type, speak specifically about what sodomites actually do to each other. For good reason. That’s the last thing that they want in the mind’s eye. They want the world to see them as joyful “gay” parents and neighbors, as normal as Norman Rockwell, not as perverted “tops” and “bottoms”, who are indistinguishable from each other, except by their bedroom acts of sodomy.

Laura writes:

Obviously, I think words are very important. I meant they are relatively trivial. For the system itself — our government and its fundamental theology —  is fully behind homosexual liberation and that trend will not be reversed, no matter what language we use, as long as those principles remain.

Dan R. writes:

A potential consolation in all of this: if “homosexual” is now verboten, is it possible we’ll see a similar end to the use of “homophobia” and its variants?  I can dream, can’t I?

 Laura writes:

An unprincipled exception will be made in the case of “homophobia.” It will still be acceptable.

Alissa writes:

I think that it’s all a deliberate attack against the Romantic languages, particularly Spanish and Portuguese. In other countries and cultures (particularly Central and South America), it’s normal to use “negro” to refer to black and “homosexual” to refer to a perverse orientation towards the same sex. Yes, once again they use the word sex and not gender.

It’s also a campaign for the destruction of language and the subversion of thought. It’s all thought police, and speech police.

Please follow and like us: