I'll mention what I mentioned to someone earlier- it's not permanent. It's a week to cool off and assess things.

Cooler heads prevailed, vacation is over.

What you're talking about there is delivering a correct word with a derogatory tone which makes the tone derogatory but not the word. One could deliver 'gay' with the same sneering attitude but that doesn't make the word derogatory. By contrast If you call someone a 'faggot' because he's homosexual that's derogatory irrespective of the tone so the word itself is derogatory.

km

Thank you km, for finding your way in to reply amongst all this muckery. I mean it.

One could deliver the word "homosexual" or "bastard" to a gay person or someone born illegimately quite unsneeringly and I would bet you that most people would not be comfortable with it. In the specific case of both people I mentioned, they are pretty thick-skinned but I would never call them a "homosexual" or a "bastard" regardless of how unsneeringly I said it, because I sincerely doubt it would be taken well at all. One has to consider the listener's feelings as well, and whether a term is derogatory or not is in the ear of the behearer, in my opinion. I refer back to my story of the couple I met in a park a few years back. We all make mistakes, but I would not willfully continue using a word that is considered derogatory by others, because it would show a lack of respect, and it also gives someone an excuse not to listen to me at all. And I do like to talk. (:

btw, in my time and region, the word "faggot" as opposed to "fag" had such a strong connotation that I didn't hear it used very often at all, especially not directly to anyone. "Homo" and "homosexual" were words however that people had no compunction about using.

btw, I made one more comment which you may or may not have seen; I could certainly see how you might have missed it among all that mess. I will paste it again below. I was curious if you had any more thoughts on this as well.
-------
And just to make it clear; I don't believe that the difference in people's opinions about "gays" in the military as opposed to "homosexuals" in the military is:

"because gays are perceived as persons who happen to be happy and carefree whereas homosexuals are those who indulge in same-sex activities."

I believe it is much more likely because the word "gays" to describe a sexual orientation has lost most of the negative connotation it may have had for most people, while the word "homosexuals" stirs up negative feelings in people because it still has negative connotations for most people.

But that does not mean you are not entitled to your theory, km.

I take the view that the prejudiced listener will hear 'gay' and 'homosexual' with equal contempt whereas the objective listener will hear them both with equanimity. If that's right then the word itself is not influential where its meaning is generally agreed.

km

O...K... a person sufficiently prejudiced (against gays I assume?) would indeed hear both the word "gays" and the word "homosexuals" with equal contempt. And an "objective listener", if there is such a thing, would hear both terms with equanimity. So both of these groups, whatever the hell they mean, would hear both terms with equanimity, just a different type of equanimity... I don't see why anyone could have any other view of the two "listeners" that you posit.

I still, and I give you my solemn promise that I really am trying, have absolutely no idea how this in anyway addresses (let alone explains) the question of why a poll conducted with two different groups of people (Democrats if it matters) got such skewed results when only the word "gays (and lesbians)" was transposed with "homosexuals" when asked what people thought about having gays/homosexuals serve openly in the military.

On the off chance that you were making a general statement relating to our discussions (which I doubt because your latest post immediately followed my post reintroducing the topic of the two polls) I would still have a hard time wondering exactly or even inexactly it is that you are addressing.

Reading comprehension was always the area I scored highest in on aptitude tests, but admittedly it's been a decade or two...

I didn't even read the poll - mainly because Reboot gave the impression that it would be a bit of a chore to wade through it with all the links. My observations stem from this - that if I were asked whether gays should serve in the military or whether homosexuals should I'd give the same answer because to me it's the same question. If people give different answers it seems to me that they're distinguishing between the meanings of the two terms which focuses attention on 'gay' as the prime suspect because it's the least precise. As to prejudiced persons showing equanimity I'd say that would be unduly flattering of them.

km

The possibility that you were one of the objective listeners that you posited did occur to me. Well, I am fairly certain I would have given the same answer whichever term was used as well. It may prove that we are objective listeners, yet it also proves we would understand the unambiguous meaning of the word "gay" in the question we were given, lest we risk giving two answers for the two words, regardless of our objectiveness (or prejudice for that matter).

The objectiveness of the listeners in these polls is exactly what I believe led to the difference between the two polls. It had absolutely nothing to do with some people in the poll which used the word "gays" getting confused whether the question was asking about "homosexuals" or people who are happy/colorful and/or laughable.

You can call me a lesbian, you can call me a homosexual just don't call me late for a beer!