Is it normal to hijack the word 'gay'?

omg i agree!! they also hijacked the rainbow!! i love rainbows... but if i were to wear one for example people would think i'm gay :/

The word gay is just that a word. many words have many meanings and the word gay is no exception. The reason gay people are upset over the new meaning is that using a term that describes thousands of people who are very proud to be gay and support the community to describe things that "don't work right" is very insulting. A thing can not be gay because gay describes a person who likes the opposite sex and since things can not have emotions it doesn't work. The only reason gay is used to describe things now is because it was put into that context by stupid teenage boys who are afraid people would think their gay and it spread from their. So since when is it a good idea for adults to copy teenagers? Before you go around insulting a culture try looking into it a bit more so you don't sound like a jerk. Also the word has not been hijacked because it still retains its past meanings and as for rainbows in the comments below many gay people don't want them you can have them.

thats just g4y

Homos are annoying crybabies I can't stand homos, no offense, ha yeah right I hope I do offend homos can't stand them.

Very true. Language constantly evolves and no group can claim to be able to be able to control words in our language. You are right to point homosexuals took the word gay and it's a bit hyprocritical for them to complain when the word is taken again. Most people who use the word sent homophobic, they are just using the language as it stands today. Nothing wrong with that and homosexuals should just realize it isn't a conspiracy or insult against them, just an evolution of our language.

I'm only here about the rainbow thing that Shrunk mentioned. I'm straight, but if I want to wear a rainbow shirt or paint my nails rainbow colors or dye my hair rainbow, I'm going to do it! If people assume (without asking if) I'm gay just because of what I wear or because of my hair color or whatever, it's their own stupid mistake.

No one person or group of people control rainbows or the word "gay" or anything really. Words and things like rainbows belong to all of us, no one can proclaim them as their own.

Ok I'm gay and I say "blah blah is so gay" people need to chill ... As for all the fag haters out there...ur all BLATANT faggot homo closet cases!!! Enjoy ur pathetic lives of denial and continue having a closed repugnant mind!!! I'm happy to be called fag,queer,gay,ass bandit NONE of it bothers me but out a homophobic mouth it does coz u so obviously Wana suck dick and it's made u bitter so u hate us LOL...fuck all of you and ur alll gona live a pathetic meaningless life...WHO CARES what two men,women or a man and a woman get up to!!!!
Like I said its sad that it consumes ur mind!!oh well ...ur all gona die miserable ...pathetic ppl...get a grip ,move on LIVE UR OWN LIFE!!!

Part two? No, I won't rant; you do enough for both of us. I stand corrected, though. It was 'A Day Without Art' which began on December 1st, 1989, and then became 'World AIDS Day'. The implication is obvious though and you're simply disingenuous to claim that you're gay and never heard of it. I don't care if you can play every instrument in the orchestra; you're playing dumb and that doesn't play with me.

You've taken this far from the original question which dealt with whether it was normal for the general public to change the definition of a word. The fact is that it has already been done and most people say that it IS normal. That should tell you something about the public perception of your alphabet soup community. Now the question becomes, "Do you want to change that perception?"

I have a suggestion for that although it means taking personal responsibility and that's difficult for everyone no matter what the issue is. I think most sexually active persons regardless of orientation could get behind a 'Wrap It to Prevent Disease Day'. What makes artists so special?

I've already warned you to be careful. If you want to take this into the quicksand of defending homosexuality as normal...it simply isn't according to a statistical definition. That doesn't justify hating or discriminating against homosexuals, though. I never even pointed out whether you had a problem. But you do, and it's a big one. You ignore it at your own risk.

Go ahead; attack me. You seem to enjoy it as much as the homosexual community and their media supporters (those I termed homophiles) enjoy spreading disinformation. This is what really offends me. I don't really care what you stick where, but I don't like being lied to. Do YOU like being lied to?

Melodioushands, you're wrong about it having lost its original definition of colorful, at least in this area. Even so, I credit you with being the most rational homosexual I've ever encountered.

Be careful about using the term homophobia. Psychology Today isn't conservative by a long shot, and that's where I read of the creation and evolution of that term. It was originally coined by free sex homosexuals and thrown at those who wanted monogamous relationships for the obvious reason that monogamous relationships removed them from the pool of sexual partners. AIDS came along and it was thrown back, again by the same groups of homosexuals to homosexuals. Then it became a term to belittle and censor anything that might make homosexuality look bad no matter how factual it was. Do you want to try defending censorship?

I'm not anti homosexual--I am anti hypocritical so be very careful if you respond to this. Accuse me of insulting your culture? Be very, very careful because you know less about your culture than you think you do. The proof of that is that you don't know that there's a difference between -sexual and -phile. You automatically thought that I was accusing homosexuals of being pedophiles and I did no such thing. You've been primed to think the worst so you do.

I truly believe that homosexuality will eventually be accepted more than it is now, but how does being primed to hate, attack and censor--from your side--advance that goal? Wise up; it doesn't.

I observe. I judge. I have every right to do so. Everyone does. They will all judge your behavior. Get used to it. If a man abandons his wife at mid-life to go after a younger woman, he's the same as a man that does it to be with men. I've seen both. I condemn both.

lgbtq...yeah, I know what all the letters stand for. If I've offended any of them, they need to look at themselves and examine their own hypocrisy.

yeah i agree and it annoys me when people get all huffy about the word fag. the word faggot actually means "bundle of sticks" so how in the hell is that offensive? there are WAY too many politically correct idiots out there who just need to harden up and relax and stop being so judgemental and stop trying to control people.

Melodioushands...Oh, the words are just words. That's such an easy way out. So are the words retarded, imbecile and moron, which were once legitimate psychiatric medical terms. We're much more compassionate toward the mentally impaired, and that's a good thing. But we still acknowledge that they are not normal and need special care. You contradict your own argument when you say that the word gay can't apply to inanimate objects. How can you then reserve it to a particular group and use when that is as far from the original meaning as you can possibly get? It's your own prejudice to reserve the word gay to apply exclusively to homosexuals. If homosexuals don't like that, let them find another word. The word queer was once despised by them and then adopted.

When the word gay was first used to mean homosexual, its general use was dropped like a hot potato by everyone, not just teenage boys. By everyone. I'm sure homosexuals thought it was a great victory. But just as it can be dropped, it can be picked up again and redefined. That's really all I've been pointing out.

Like other homosexuals (/philes) you think I'm insulting a culture. I'm not, but you are. Haven't you heard about a world without art, suggesting that if there were no homosexuals there would be no art? It's an insult to artists in general to suggest that they aren't real artists unless they're homosexual. That's stereotyping.

I commented on a term. You turned it into mudslinging. I've come to expect that, and it IS a form of censorship. If you had an "honest" opinion, you could do better. What you have is an angry bias.

Randomjelly, you raise an interesting point. Unfortunately, that point is censorship through intimidation. I don't regard bullying in any form to be acceptable, but it's very common. Your last sentence is a form of bullying and censorship through belittling. But why should you think it would work? The belittling terms terms "closet" and "consumed with gays" don't work with me. And aren't you undermining your own argument by using them? The only way that can work is if homosexuality is assumed to be shameful and undesirable. I made no such claim. But a school student was once disciplined because a teacher overheard her say, "That's so gay!" without knowing the meaning had changed.

Point of order: I made an observation and posted it properly under observations. I didn't make this world; I just live in it.

"Assigned?" I think you need a dictionary. Get a modern one, because there's a meaning of the term 'hijack' that's been used since the 90's. You must be way old if you don't know that.

random's right and this is gay.