Is the use of the word "Gay" as a synonym for "Stupid"/"Lacklustre"/"Poor"/etc. acceptable?

I think so. I love language and am always interested when I see it evolving. Unfortunately, I am also a teacher.
It's hard sometimes to know whether or not to let the use of this word go in school. In my view it's fine.

The word has already changed meaning once - gay was bright and cheerful as everyone knows. It's naive and foolish to assume we can stop it from evolving again, especially since, the majority of times we hear it in school, no homosexual connotation is intended at all.

Also, if we ban the use of gay as a synonym for lame, we have to ban lame too, right? I mean, that originally meant a physically disabled person. Now it means rubbish... But that's OK...?

Where's the line?

I think it's a poor substitute for the alternative word choices and I would encourage them to use greater variety in their verbal expression, but I wouldn't cite it's current association with homosexuality as a reason not co-opt it again for the sake of slang.

I think so. I love language and am always interested when I see it evolving. Unfortunately, I am also a teacher. It's hard sometimes to know whether or not to let the use of this word go in school. In my view it's fine.

The word has already changed meaning once - gay was bright and cheerful as everyone knows. It's naive and foolish to assume we can stop it from evolving again, especially since, the majority of times we hear it in school, no homosexual connotation is intended at all.

Also, if we ban the use of gay as a synonym for lame, we have to ban lame too, right? I mean, that originally meant a physically disabled person. Now it means rubbish... But that's OK...?

Where's the line?

Also, if we ban the use of gay as a synonym for lame, we have to ban lame too, right? I mean, that originally meant a physically disabled person. Now it means rubbish... But that's OK...?



No, we don't. That doesn't make any sense at all.

iamsam82 wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

Also, if we ban the use of gay as a synonym for lame, we have to ban lame too, right? I mean, that originally meant a physically disabled person. Now it means rubbish... But that's OK...?

No, we don't. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Huh? Why don't you get this? It's fairly logical and makes perfect sense.

I genuinely don't get it. If lame is OK, then gay must be too. That makes perfect sense.

I never said I promoted it, or used it in front of kids - I just don't challenge it.

I only have a couple of gay friends, it's true, but I would have no quarms about using it to mean lacklustre in front of them. They would understand that I mean it in the post-modern sense and not as some sort of homophobic insult.

And neither do my students consider sexuality when they use the term to mean poor quality

When they say, "Your trainers are gay" they are of course not suggesting the said shoes are in a same sex relationship with another pair. Sexuality doesn't even enter their mind. The word has changed.

Whatever the result of our debate here, you must accept that the definition of the word will change entirely over the next twenty years and its use as a synonym for rubbish, whether you think rightly or wrongly, will become widely acceptable.

Not if used in the way in which iamsam83 refers.

The word has already changed meaning once - gay was bright and cheerful as everyone knows.

A radio DJ in Britain recently used the term on air with regard to a ringtone.