Talk:Gay

archive

/archive 1 2005 talk -- Merge, then unmerge discussed. Cleanup started and finished. Discussion of gay as a perjorative. Probably could be cut more, but I started out with an archive, vs cutting. Dstanfor 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

The Gertrude Stein story cited as the first usage of Gay in the new sense is Miss Furr and Miss Skeene, not Mrs. Skeene. I'm currently editing it for Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreading.

Etymology

One theory is that the term is short for "gay deceiver." "Gay deceiver" wasonce a familiar phrase, though it began as a Victorian term for a love 'em and leave 'em ladies' man (the second verse of "Dixie," for example, begins: "Ol mistis married Will the Weaver, Will he was a gay deceiver, Look away..."). In the years when gay men stayed "in the closet," deceiving the world as to their real interests, a coded inquiry from one to another was "Are you a gay deceiver?"

The article is out of date (June 2006). It is now common amongst youth in US, UK and Australia to use the term 'gay as a general pejorative term. "That music band is gay (or so gay)..." does not indicate homophobia. Please research this fact and alter. Please consult the new version of the Oxford English Dictionary for confirmation. I think this warrants valid inclusion as may people are unnecessarily offended due to their own ignorance of youth culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.16 (talk • contribs)

Really? Read it properly. Try going all the way to the end. Or does it display "ignorance of youth culture" to expect you to do that? Paul B 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding rather more long-term etymology: I just removed the claim that 'gay' came from Latin gaius - it's not even mentioned in the referenced source (etymonline)!!. Gaius was a personal name in Latin, but I'm not aware of it as an adjective or even common noun, and it's not listed as such in any Latin dictionaries I've looked at. I suppose French gai could have been related to Latin gaudere ('rejoice'), but the fact that more serious etymologists than I don't seem to think so puts me off that idea. garik 11:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

AIDS

WTF??! It's a fact that AIDS run rampant with you people. Why are you denying? Who's the punk that keep removing AIDS from the "See also" section? Stop denying! Don't make me pull out all the HIV sources.

please, behave yourself. AIDS link has nothing to do with this topic, as well as with heterosexual. This is the reason, why it was removed. Please, sign your comments also, by adding 4 tildas in the end. ~~~~ Also please add your comments at the end of the talk page, not on it's top. Thanks --tasc 08:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Females can get AIDS, shocking, aint it? Females have like zero sexual connection to gays, yet they get the AIDS. How is that possible? Ah, it is a worldwide thing now, although I think gays will always own AIDS as a big sympathy thing, you know what I mean JayKeaton 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a sticky issue. The AIDS pandemic was at first largely confined to western gay men, and gay men do have a much higher rate of HIV infection than heterosexuals. But that rate is still very, very low (for example, more out gay men die of smoking related diseases each year than of aids -- a striking figure because out gay men tend to be younger than the general population, and therefore not old enough to have smoked for decades and decades). Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 08:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I think AIDS was first noticed in Western gay men because Western gay men have better access to health care than most people in sub-Saharan Africa where it originated, yes? --FOo 09:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Er. I'm not actually well enough versed in the history to know. *reads article* Alright. But Aids did have a tremendous effect on the culture of the gay community -- between the '80s and the mid '90s, it decimated the community's U.S. urban centers. But I think I've changed my mind on this one. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

AIDS was'net around for the 60's sexual revolution, it was for the gay one (which happenned later, when it became more accepted). That way AIDS seems like a 'gay' issue. Had it been around during the 60's it would have been a problem for everybody, instead of a 'punishment for a lifestyle' --134.58.253.130 13:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem of perspective. In most non-Western countries, AIDS is not understood to be particularly associated with gays at all. The fact that it is so associated with gays in Europe, North America and Australia/New Zealand is a tribute to the shared culutre of those regions and is not reflective of the pandemic in Africa or the infections in Asia.

Uhm..... AIDS was already around in 1959 (this is the current *earliest* known case)[1]. It didn't yet have a name, or a quilt/cause, but people were already infected and spreading the disease. They'd eventually die young, and there wasn't any real rhyme or reason to it. One way of looking at the american-gay-aids connection is that certain sexual practices meant that all of a sudden, there was a "cluster", a specific group, where scientists could look for root causes of what was previously thought to be random, strange, deaths.... When it was (seemingly) random deaths regardless of any pattern or cluster, epidemiologists simply didn't know where to look, or what to look for. Ronabop 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As of a few years ago in the UK, there are more straight people with HIV than gay people, i think the last figures i saw were approximatley 24,000 gay people and 26,000 straight people and it's increasing faster in the straight population. Of course due to a lower proportion of gay people compared to straight people, you are more likely to have the HIV virus if you are gay but i thought i'd add some figures there for you. Worlwide though approximatley 90% of people infected with the HIV virus are straight since most cases come from third world countries.

They say the current most afflicted group in America are young, urban black men. Regardless of orientation. Funny how you wouldn't see it shoved into the "African American" category. The bottom line is that AIDS is not considerate of gay, straight, black, white, hispanic, whatever. It's common sense without prejudice. --AWF

about restricting meanings to majority usage

one of the problems with the article is that it makes it seem like the word "homosexual" has a negative connotation, suggested by its use as a former psychiatric term. it seems like the problem with this assertion is also related to the debate about the perjorative usage of the word "gay." in both cases the article fails to acknowledge that the acceptance of sexual behavior is culture specific, and having sexual relationships with people of the same sex is still viewed as unacceptable by some people, is viewed as weird but tolerable by others, is openly accepted by some and is supported and sympathized with by still another subculture in modern america. the trend toward mainstream acceptance of this behavior is a phenomena of the later half of the 20th century, and as it continues the problems endemic in your article, which includes misleading information about terminology slow this progress. this is because, for instance, in my experience "homosexual" doesn't have a negative connotation any more than the idea it represents does. in fact as a perjorative the usage of the term "homosexual" even parallels that of "gay," both of them are used by certain individuals to express a rejection of something on usually aesthetic but sometimes social grounds. often this relates to steriotypical gender or nongender-related norms of sexual and social behavior. often the perjorative usage embodies a sense that the speaker is either unaware that their labeling is offensive or they themselves genuinely are rejecting or dejecting something they find unacceptable, and whether or not they offend someone isn't something they think about. among some Americans the terms has taken on an extended metaphorical usage, meaning anything which is abnormal. it seems like the article should at least address some of these or related issues instead of merely stating that the term "homosexual" is clinical-sounding, for as a member of the generation which has no memory of this usage, it seems like this would be an attribute of the previous generations issue about the word usage. in conclusion there are so many examples of such biased and non-comprehensive language in the article that one can't begin to address the issues of your statements about the GLBT community. As someone who is "homosexual," i can say i have never felt represented by the "community" and even find it to be a detriment to people who have to particpate in a society where their own identity is still viewed as counter-cultural, and are in favour of progress towards a greater tolerance of sexual and social norms.

the perception of abnormality:stereotype-straightjacket

furthermore, to add to the comments about the perjorative usage of the word gay it seems to parallel certain attitudes widespread in mainstream society even among well educated and tolerant people. for example neither myself nor my roommate has ever sought out female sexual relationships and neither of us display any kind of overtly sexual behavior directed towards others. neither of us actively seeks out other gay men, except only when we meet them in social situations, and yet these attributes are viewed by a female friend of mine, who is a medical student as "abnormal." and yet the connotation of that word isn't just that these attributes are less frequent but acceptable, the connotation is that being "abnormal" means that these attributes are deviant and not as acceptable as her own behavior. what is remarkable to me as a person living in the 21st century is that these attitudes persist so stubbornly. nevermind just acknowledging that if you are different like my roommate and i and both homosexual that this is different anyway from mainstream sexual norms, even if you are known to be gay, and even moreso if you called gay, you are held up to an even more stringent and stereotyped standard of behavior. if you are gay you're not allowed to look not gay, if you're gay you can only dress a certain way, act a certain way, and all of it is stereotypes. and yet its not really just about sexuality...within contemporary society the stereotyping of sexual norms is parallel to the stereotyping of thought on social, occupational and intellectual norms, and these stereotypes are common among but certainly not limited to those who aren't college educated. all of such normalization of thought, in personal exchange and in the media somehow has to do with the intrusion of these ideas upon personal freedom. it is not enough that we don't harm others, and even are trying to help them, if we disobey any of these stereotypes which have been growing more disturbingly rigid under the years of the second George Bush presidency, we are a certain and outright threat to those who hold these perceptions, whether they believe they are conservative about same sex issues or they are indentify themselves with a stereotyped gay identity and political expression of that.----DEV

Protected?

It seems that not a day goes by without some bright little 12-year-old getting the ingenious idea of editing this article to say "Gay is a term for [insert name of boy in editor's class whom he doesn't like]". The only really effective way to stop this is to protect the page. Do other Wikipedians think this is necessary? — JIP | Talk 14:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism is minimally harmful. It takes about three seconds for a sysop to revert this and about fifteen for anyone else. If this page starts getting hit ten times per hour like some slashdotted articles have been, I would recommend protection. Guanaco 22:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My first time to ever edit a Wiki page and it's to remove the vandalism to which you are referring. Sad. I agree with the protection. Em75208

My semi-protect of the article was removed. I suspected this article undergoes heavy vandalism, and it became one of the first article to receive the status. -- user:zanimum

Semi protect in looking at March 10, 2006, edits, it's clear where the trouble is coming from. Rklawton 20:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needs permanent semiprotection; the middle-school dipshits and Fundies constantly attacking the article are getting most tiresome. I'm sick of always seeing this article at the very top of my watchlist. E. Sn0 =31337= 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Gay Apparel

I cleaned up some awkward grammar, and added a reference to the line in "Deck the halls" that says "don we now our gay apparel" to show the different meaning of "gay" in the 19th century. This was reversed (unjustly I claim) by Paul Barlow for this reason:

Paul Barlow (→Etymology - remove Deck the Halls ref. It does not illustrate

the evolution from "earlier uses", unless placed next to the later discussion

of "gay attire")

... *sigh* Actually, that is exactly what it illustrates. That Christmas carol has nothing to do with sexuality and even less to do with assless chaps. The line in the song means "Now we're going to put on our happy party clothes because it's Christmas and that's a joyful occasion". This all goes to support the pre-existing text about how the meaning changed during the 20th. It would be laughable to put 'Deck the halls' in the paragraph about 'gay attire'. If nobody minds I'm going to put back my changes. GreatAlfredini 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Of course it had nothing to do with sexuality or with "assless chaps", whatever they may be. That's the point. It did not illustrate the evolution of the term from earlier usage, which was the subject of the sentence in which it was placed. It illustrated one of the earlier uses, indeed one of the minor ones ("bright and showy"), not even the major one. As an illustration of a definition it should appear after the definition, as the OED, for example, does. There's no point sticking it in before the definition has been given. That's confusing. The later passage about "gay attire" is about how this usage - "bright and showy" - changed its connotation as the word moved towards its modern meaning. The song Deck the Halls uses the near-identical phrase "gay apparel", which aptly illustrates the usage in its traditional sense, and thus the way that can change to acquire the connotation "camp" as the word comes to be increasingly associated with homsexuality, especially in a context in which public stereotypes of gay men were generally camp/effeminate - hence the later reference to the mainstream usage of the term with the modern meaning in The Producers. Paul B 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But the term has already been defined, so this argument doesn't quite work for me. In the intro paragraph it already says (in the present tense) that the word gay "is most commonly used as a term to identify a man with a homosexual orientation. It can also be used to describe a homosexual woman". That applies to today's usage. So when the next section starts in on the history of the word, you're already talking about its evolution, and that's where the article should illustrate an archaic use of the word. The 19th century reference should be where I put it because right after that the article discusses its usage in the 20th. And in any case, even if that was the concern, then the reference should have been moved and expanded, rather than just outright removed. I think it should stay where it was, maybe be expanded there, not in the unrelated paragraph about attire. Not only that, it's redundant to say that something evolved from earlier usages - with a dash for a pause to point to the significance of the inane observation. Few things evolve backwards from the future. I like the 'Deck the halls' reference because it's something with which most people are familiar. To me, the song line is not about bright, showy, or campy, but happy. Maybe the existing framework isn't very good and that's the fundamental problem. Maybe we can find a nice sequential place to show formerly dominant usages of the word, with a place for the Deck the halls reference. GreatAlfredini 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the definition you were illustrating had not already been given. That's the crucial point. Only its modern meaning had been given. Here's how you placed the illustration - before the definition of the usage you were illustrating:

The primary meaning of the word gay has changed dramatically during the 20th century. The change evolved from earlier usages as exemplified in the line from 19th century song Deck the halls 'don we now our gay apparel'. It derives via the French gai, from the Latin gaius, and originally meant "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" and was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature.

It is not redundant, nor is it an "inane observation" to say that the modern usage evolved from earlier uses. Of course "few things evolve backward from the future", but the important word in the sentence is "evolve". The point of the term "evolved" is to indicate that the modern meaning arose in stages that can be mapped, that its modern use did not emerge as a subcultural code, for example, with only an arbitrary relation to the original sense. The emphasis on the slow evolution of the modern meaning also helps put in context the ambiguous usages in mainstream literature, movies etc from the 30s and 40s for example. I think the meaning in the song is bright, colorful etc - that's what gay attire/apparel etc usually meant. Paul B 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, "the primary meaning of the word gay has changed dramatically during the 20th century" but who has "tried to recover the original denotion of the word but with limited success?" Gilliamjf 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

People who dislike the loss of the original meaning. It has been quite a common complaint in my experience. Are you asking for citations? Paul B 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well sure I would not mind references to this vague statement. I thought that at least since the 80s, gay has more and more replaced queer, and I don't see anyone trying to recover its previous denotion. Like any modern language, English is a living language which cannot be "controlled." Anyway, I would not object if this passage mentioning this agenda of "recovering" gay were removed. Gilliamjf 02:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See also section

It seems a little inappropriate here that in the see also section "Dyke" and "Fag" appear. I mean, if you go to African-American, in the see also section, you're not going to see the n-word. Gilliamjf 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact an article on Nigger. Dyke and Fag are not - these days - merely insults, as I'm sure you know. Anyway, "Gay" originated as essentially a slang word, so it is reasonably comparable to the other two. "African-American" is not slang, and is only applicable to the U.S. Paul B 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a little besides the point, but African-American translates into German as Afro-Amerikaner. I am fairly certain that this term is not unique to American English. Gilliamjf 06:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. The fact that the phrase translates into German, or any other language, does not alter the fact that it only applies to the USA. In German it still refers only to black people who are Americans, not to black people who are Germans. "American" here refers to the USA, not to other countries in the Americas. Paul B 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

Sorry to say this wont be quite as academic as the other comments but here goes.

I kid you not, but I am actually in this picture holding hands with my boyfriend (looking to the left). (I can prove it by sending you addl photos danb912 (at) gmail.com) I was completely oblivious of this until a friend pointed it out. I was unaware our picture was being taken. Needless to say it was rather exciting seeing the picture. I nearly shat my pants.

I've left it up for a few months but am beggining to have second thoughts- for privacy reasons mostly, but also because its a big responsibility being the definition of gay. I'm also on Castro's definition. Do you guys mind switching out the pic with another? Its been fun to show friends, but I think I've served my tenure and its time to bow out.

Thanks, Dan 3/15/06

Seems reasonable to me, but a little sad - it's a great picture! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Okay, I'll take it down now.

-Dan

frustrating, :(((( --tasc 19:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem - The image is still used at The Castro, San Francisco, California. A quick look-see shows it's also on the French wikipedia for two articles, Gay(homosexualité) and Homosexualité. And on the Spanish articles Homosexualidad and Movimiento gay. The image itself is uploaded on most of the main language sites unused. --Kinst 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Photograph Follow-Up

• To all gay wikipedians: I agree that we should honor Dan's request and remove the photo of him. I believe that this article could really use a photo of a gay couple (mm or ff) holding hands, though. So please, someone, upload a pic of you & your mate. Thanks! --M@rēino 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We should probably get an admin to delete the photo Castro-sidewalk-east-cropped.jpg that's here now, too. I have no idea how to do that, so I guess I'm just hoping some admin will wander by, see this, and delete it. -Seth Mahoney 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of the photo's author. Photo admins can speedy-delete photos at the author's request. --M@rēino 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. -Seth Mahoney 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's fine with me to delete this image to honor Dan's request. Note that this photo was originally taken to illustrate The Castro, San Francisco, California, and there is a larger version at Image:Castro-sidewalk-east.jpg (stored on the Commons). I no longer live in San Francisco, so someone else will need to take a suitable replacement. -- Beland 11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have deleted the image on the english wikipedia, the image is uploaded to the commons and the polish wikipedia, the uncropped version is also on the commons and most major wikipedias and it is being used in about 16 articles across all languages. [2] This doesn't include any mirrors that may have copied the public domain image. I will watch this page and try to help in any way I can, but I don't know if total removal is possible at this point. - cohesion^t 20:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I left that with a sort of giving up tone which, I didn't intend, I certainly understand your request and will continue to research it and see what I can do. - cohesion^t 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Update #3, I am in the process of removing the image from all projects, It would be nice it we could get another image, but to replace this image would be difficult, It would need to be American men walking in the castro holding hands that were gay to suit all the articles it is currently used in. It may take a little while to get it deleted, but I think that's the right thing to do. - cohesion^t 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dan but your 'courage' offends us all. Why don't you ASSUME ??? Huster

The image has been removed from everywhere except the Russian version, that page is protected, but the image they are using is the one on the commons. We are now waiting for commons administrators to delete the image. It is very sad that the image will be deleted though, It was used in a variety of articles in many languages on subjects like homosexuality, the gay movement, and US culture. It was even used in a wikibook to teach people the Spanish word for "walking" andando :) It is sad, but at the same time I understand, I'm actually gay also and I don't know how I would feel about being the face on the article "Gay" :D - cohesion^t 02:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Gay CIA

Someone has added the following sentence just after the Bringing Up Baby section - "Gay is slang used among government officials for high ranking CIA field operatives." Is it? Can anyone clarify? Even if true, this is misplaced, since its presumably a recent usage, and should not be placed on a para about the 30s-40s. I have deleted it, provisionally. Paul B 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It would definitely need a citation, and clarification if it were to be reincluded. -Seth Mahoney 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of intro statement

"Gay used as an adjective, describes traits associated with gays and lesbians, their culture, or perceived lifestyle." This usage would seem to be less common, since "gay" is usually associated with homosexual men, rather than with lesbians. Isn't this the reason for the increasing usage of "LGBT"? SouthernComfort 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think differences in usage are regional (I can check to see if there are any studies to confirm that - it would make an interesting sociolinguistic addition). It wouldn't be unusual here on the northwest coast of the US to hear someone use the phrase "gay woman" to refer to a lesbian, or to hear a lesbian describe herself as gay. Gay as a plural noun is also often used to refer to gay men and lesbians (to me, it would be weird to hear someone say "gays" - a word I'm bothered by anyway - and not mean to include lesbians). However, that brings up another difference - gay used as an adjective is also commonly used to describe people in a way that doesn't specifically reference gay culture, gay traits, or any so-called gay lifestyle. A nearly unreadable lipstick lesbian shopping for new shoes could just as well be called gay as an uberbutch dyke repairing her pickup truck. LGBT, in my understanding, is used not so much to specifically include lesbians (who have been for a long time included under, say, gay rights movements) but to specifically include bisexual people and trans people, and in exceptionally liberal circles has been expanded to LGBTQQI+some other letters I don't remember. LGB was used for a while to specifically include bisexual people, but I don't recall ever seeing LG. -Seth Mahoney 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, considering regional differences and so forth (it's been a long while since I've heard the term "gay woman" as a common phrase), how about this version: "Gay, used as an adjective, sometimes describes traits associated with both gay men and lesbians, their culture, or perceived lifestyle"? SouthernComfort 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That works. It sounds a liitle like 'gay' as an adjective only sometimes describes all the things that follow, rather than describing traits of gay men and sometimes women, but I can't think of a way to further clarify. -Seth Mahoney 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of a better phrasing either. SouthernComfort 18:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Glad to see this page is finally (semi)protected. It must have been getting vandalised 5 times a day for the last few weeks. Exploding Boy 06:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Five times an hour, more like. Sceptre ^(Talk) 15:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation neccesary

Disambiguation IS neccesary. The original meaning of the word is joyous and happy, it remains present in many literary texts, it can be found in text and explanation sought that is not given here. In addittion, my elderly relatives often use the term in this sense. By what right can the word be wholly appropriate - it is unacceptable. Further, the word 'gay' is not just used as an insult to homosexuals, it is also a word meaning 'sad' or 'pathetic' or 'uncool' or 'failure' amongst the youth of Britain without a thought to sexual orientation. This is the most common usage of the word by far. If this term should be classified by most common usage, it should be explained as such.

Shouting at the wind does not change the fact that 'gay' is not a technical term, or that the rainbow flag was appropriated from the hippy movement and the flag of the Cuzco area of Peru and is being reappropriated for that reason. Things change - for or against you, it is fact that should be represented 194.112.58.29 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, disambiguation is not necessary, as it's not an insult anymore but a cultural and sexual description. "The most common usage of the word by far" is to describe homosexual men. FCYTravis 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation is provided. See gay (disambiguation), which links to other interwiki disambiguation pages. GilliamJF 12:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this gay?

I am attracted to girls, shemales and girly boys, but both in my view are women and not men (psychologically not biologically determined). I am not attracted to the male body at all, but im willing to put aside that if i am convinced someone is truly girly (to the extent of capturing that effiminate beauty like Japanese rockers like visual kei. I also not sure if i can count myself as bisexual (as im not attracted to masculinity, or the masculine form), what would i be classified as? --213.106.102.178 21:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Response You'd probably have better luck asking Dan Savage. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really sweet ^ ^ Just do what feels good without hurting anyone (I mean if cutting peoples scalps off and wearing them as hats makes you feel good, then you shouldn't do that). JayKeaton 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub. Objectively, everyone knows being gay has no extra 'natural' risk factors, but certain particularly narrow-minded people (Levites) way back in the Middle East put pen to paper and wrote homosexuality as being against the rules to differentiate themselves from cultures east of their lands (Babylonians). A truly excessive number of windfalls and coincidences later, these writings have made it into the belief systems of Dominant Power (Roman Catholic Church) after Dominant Power (Europe during Crusades and Inquisition) after Dominant Power (British Empire) after Dominant Power (America). These writings also made it into the Quran, causing similar results. Cue much gnashing of teeth and enormous amounts of completely unnecessary bloodshed, pain, suffering, and death from gays throughout history.

So the natural risk factors are no more than usual for heterosexual sex, but religious institutions have seen to it that we run into a truly massive artificial risk factor by spreading half-truths and outright lies, thereby pandering directly to sensationalism, ignorance, hate, bigotry, and the general bloodthirstiness of their flocks. Break the cycle! E. Sn0 =31337= 15:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

History of same-sex unions

This bit seems to have been inserted at random yesterday and I'm not at all convinced it's necessary. As it is, I've edited it considerably for English and style and stuck it at the end (it was originally just plonked in the middle of etymology). If it's to stay, it still needs work. As this kind of stuff is covered under homosexuality anyway, it seems out of place though. Garik 23:57, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I don't think it should be here at all. This page is about the usage of the word "gay", not about the history of homosexuality. Anyway, I'm moving the whole thing here. Paul B 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. Garik 11:18, 10 May 2006 (BST)

A Brief History of Same-Sex Unions

Same-sex unions have a long history in all continents (excluding Antarctica) from as early as Ancient Egypt, Classical Rome and Greece. The first recorded male couple in history was Khnumhotep and Niankhknum during the Fifth Dynasty. Same-sex relationships have also been recorded in all of Ancient Asia - from the Middle East to South and East Asia. These unions were usually between men and involved an age-difference. In Fujian in China, sexual relationships occurred between men and male youths. These marriages would last several years and the elder partner was responsible for finding the younger lover a wife in order that a family might be raised. In Classical Europe, same-sex marriages were plentiful, but the practice was claimed unlawful in 342 CE. In Greece, Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were involved in pederastic relationships, in which the younger males were of the age at which women were usually married. Just as in relationships between men and young women, these same-sex unions had to have the approval of the father. In ancient Rome, the Emperors Nero and Diocletian married male couples. The Romans considered dominance an important aspect of sexuality and felt powerful by raping their enemies, a behaviour that led to intolerance of same-sex relationships in Rome. In medieval Europe, same-sex relations were apparently very rare and were kept hidden. Passionate friendships between members of the same sex were celebrated, but these were not assumed to involve a sexual component. In 19th century U.S.A., two women were allowed to make a commitment to each other that was named a “Boston Marriage”, yet involved no forms of sexual activity.

In ancient Chinese culture, the same-sex unions between (ideally) wise elders and younger men were perceived as having educational value for the younger partner. In Native North America, the “Two-Spirit” relationship between certain male members of the tribe was one of cultural importance and forwarded respect towards these couples. In the recent history of the United States, women were allowed to make long-term commitment which was called a “Boston Marriage”.

Protection

I strongly request this article be put on permanent semiprotection. Vandals are drawn to it like flies to three-day-old excrement. Please honor my request. E. Sn0 =31337= 17:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would happily support this. Exploding Boy 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So would I. However, I also think that vandal fighters are doing a great job with reverting the childishness. It usually takes less than a minute for vandalsim to be removed. PrometheusX303 13:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave things open, unless some nut case latches on to the article. Haiduc 13:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? There are already nutcases attacking the article, just not one specific one, and I prefer that we adopt the tactic of defending from attack instead of rebuilding after the attack. Yes, reverts take a couple minutes (or seconds if you're an Admin), but it's not how easy or difficult repair is, it's the principle of the matter. There's also the matter of literally billions of IP addresses an attack can come from. We can't ever expect the ten-times-a-day attacks to ever cease at this rate. Editors will burn out and leave Wikipedia before the attacks stop, and what then? Right now we're reactive when we should be proactive. Protecting this article will show unequivocally to these infantile trolling throwbacks to the Inquisition and Nazi Germany (RING-A-DING! Viva Godwin's Law!) that they're absolutely not welcome at Wikipedia. E. Sn0 =31337= 14:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was not aware of the history. But "permanent" seems a bit excessive. Haiduc 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If too many articles go on permanent protection, Wikipedia ceases to be an resource that anyone can edit.PrometheusX303

True, PrometheusX303, but we're talking about semiprotection of an article that has had constant vandalism issues. A four-day waiting period is not a big deal for this particular new user, nor should it be for anyone seriously interested in contributing to Wikipedia. I'm fine with the permanent semiprotection - I can wait a day or two!  :-) -Droman 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to read WP:SPP. Protection shouldn't be used to prevent anonymous editing in general. Also defeats the purpose of an open wiki, which some people around here take very seriously. -- Steel 11:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That argument falls flat when literally 100% of anon editing to the article is pure vandalism. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not literally 100%, but damn close to it. I'd support semiprotection on this article, too. -Smahoney 20:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Point conceded. I appreciate your support. I said '100%' because I don't remember one single anon edit being constructive. It's not to say they weren't there, that just goes to show what a gargantuan mountain of vandalism and vitriol they were absolutely swamped by. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a joke!

Sometimes, most people which insult gay men, are gay men themselves.

That's a sweeping generalisation. -- 86.142.59.152 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you say "sometimes" and "most people" in the same sentence? Are you saying that most people who insult gay men are gay themselves or that sometimes gay men insult other gay men?--Tati 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Wikichik

I'm referring to the first thing you have said ("most people who insult gay men are gay themselves"). Excuse me, but I have a not too good approach with English language. Egr, 21/6/2006

Spelling error in Pejorative usage section

Could somebody who is allowed to amend please correct the spelling of 'connetations' to 'connotations'? MichaelMaggs 10:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Done. Paul B 10:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Word Usage

I was discussing whether or not the word "gay" should be viewed as offensive when used in the pejorative sense with a friend the other day and wanted to see what others thought. Personally, I grew up with people using the word to describe something as being "lame" or "cheesy" (as the article states), and while I avoid using it in this sense around anyone except my friends, I don't understand what the big deal is. It's like the concept of the word "homosexual" being offensive to some because it is a "clinical" word that harkens back to a time when same-sex attraction was seen as a medical anomaly. Breaking news: there is nothing wrong with the word homosexual, nor is there anything wrong with the word heterosexual. In case you didn't know, they essentially mean "same sex" and "different sex". I'm sick and tired of all the arguing over same-sex issues, from gay marriage to etymological snafus. In any language, terms are coined, redefined, and sometimes lost altogether. Let's just all agree that there's nothing wrong with being gay/lesbian/bi/transgender and attend to more pressing matters. We're all just a collection of dirty animals--stop worrying so much about labels.

Sorry about that; I just felt like ranting.

-- Just so you know, Wikipedia is not a discussion board, and this is not the place to just get things off your chest. This talk page is the place to discuss specific changes or potential changes to the article "Gay". -Droman 03:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And in addition, please sign your posts at the end by hitting the handy link in the edit page by "Sign your name." Thank you. -Droman 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gay lisp -- Add it to 'See also'

Someone please put a link to the article "Gay lisp" in the 'See also' section -- I can't because this page is protected and I'm an anon. --152.163.100.67 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to put links to "scientific" articles (which I believe are closer to pseuo-science) which purport to identify markers of homosexuality, we should also include scientific research on markers of heterosexuality.