Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Thinking about Language Again - "Gay" Instead of "Homosexual"
When I was writing a few comments at Ace's about pro-homosexual propaganda tactics and how they manipulate language, specially the most intensely used term "gay" for homosexual, it also occurred to me that "same-sex" marriage is a very sanitized term. "Same-sex" marriage is something that two brothers could do; simply marry for tax benefits, as critics have pointed out. Homo activists are not trying to legitimize "same-sex" marriage, they are trying to normalize homosexual marriage. So why don't they call it "homosexual" marriage?
Ironically, many of the most widely enforced and adopted homo propaganda words serve to erase (or to euphemize) the homosexual aspect of the term. It may be ironical, but it is a classic propaganda tactic to make negative concepts acceptable (such as "man-boy love" for homosexual child abuse and so many other examples).
We need to ask, if the word "homosexual" has existed for ages, and since it is the perfectly apt adjective for homosexuality, why doesn't the media currently use "homosexual" or "homosexual marriage" most of the time? Why has the term "gay" been imposed as the word to describe homosexuality by homo activists?
To institute words to beautify and to sanitize the idea of homosexuality, specially the male type, is one of the prime objectives of homo propaganda. Most pro-homos practically shun the word "homosexual" whenever possible in favor of the word "gay." And it is interesting to note that homo activitsts insist on saying "gay and lesbian" instead of simply "homosexual." The latter is shorter, simpler, and more practical to write. Nevertheless, it is clear that homo activists want to pound "gay and lesbian" into people's mind, using the same techniques as commercial branding of trademarks.
Practically only one other word aside from "gay" has been taken up by homo activists: "queer." However, only homo activists use the word "queer," which veers into signifying "weird," and it is negative, which could explain why it hasn't gained currency in the current pro-homosexual language war. "Gay," on the other hand, is definitely associated with the original meaning of the word, as in light and happy. Since there is nothing intrinsically happy about homosexuality, its use reveals it's just another euphemizing device to sell a cognition-altering idea of homosexuality to the masses.
Ironically, many of the most widely enforced and adopted homo propaganda words serve to erase (or to euphemize) the homosexual aspect of the term. It may be ironical, but it is a classic propaganda tactic to make negative concepts acceptable (such as "man-boy love" for homosexual child abuse and so many other examples).
We need to ask, if the word "homosexual" has existed for ages, and since it is the perfectly apt adjective for homosexuality, why doesn't the media currently use "homosexual" or "homosexual marriage" most of the time? Why has the term "gay" been imposed as the word to describe homosexuality by homo activists?
To institute words to beautify and to sanitize the idea of homosexuality, specially the male type, is one of the prime objectives of homo propaganda. Most pro-homos practically shun the word "homosexual" whenever possible in favor of the word "gay." And it is interesting to note that homo activitsts insist on saying "gay and lesbian" instead of simply "homosexual." The latter is shorter, simpler, and more practical to write. Nevertheless, it is clear that homo activists want to pound "gay and lesbian" into people's mind, using the same techniques as commercial branding of trademarks.
Practically only one other word aside from "gay" has been taken up by homo activists: "queer." However, only homo activists use the word "queer," which veers into signifying "weird," and it is negative, which could explain why it hasn't gained currency in the current pro-homosexual language war. "Gay," on the other hand, is definitely associated with the original meaning of the word, as in light and happy. Since there is nothing intrinsically happy about homosexuality, its use reveals it's just another euphemizing device to sell a cognition-altering idea of homosexuality to the masses.
Comments:
Post a Comment
