LGBT label improvement

[Aštra’el]

Abomination
-a thing that causes disgust or hatred


Like it or not... homosexuals and bisexuals around the world arouse all kinds of feelings of disgust and hatred in countless numbers of people.

But what can you do. Haters gonna hate.

 

[Akivah]

No uh, stop it right there. We have plenty of political threads. This thread of mine is a presidential race free zone. No mention of the candidates allowed.

That woman over there is curly.

 

[Wirey]

During my lifetime, we used to refer to same-sex people as gays, homosexuals, lesbians, or queers. Then their label changed to LGBT to try to make a single term more inclusive. Lately, I see that this label could be changed to include an I, a Q, or maybe both of them. I think there is a need to have one fixed all-inclusive label that doesn't need to be changed every year. I have thought of one.

We've been using the term "straight" to refer to heterosexuals since the 1940s. Over sixty years without change, that's a decent record. I propose that we refer to all non-heterosexuals as "curly". The word is short, neat, and clearly designates that one is "not straight". And it wouldn't have to be modified every time someone comes up with a new sexual orientation.

Maybe if yall like it, we can try to get it into circulation. What do you think? Curly!

Pffftttt! that's so ga...... curly!

 

[Revoltingest]

I still think my proposal of "sexually normal" & "sexually abnormal" ("SN" & "SA") is best.
Why?
It won't attach a stigma to.......

 

[Father Heathen]

Abomination
-a thing that causes disgust or hatred


Like it or not... homosexuals and bisexuals around the world arouse all kinds of feelings of disgust and hatred in countless numbers of people.

But what can you do. Haters gonna hate.

If we went with "abomination" for non-heterosexuals, then by fairness we should go with "backward primitives" for homophobes.

 

[Father Heathen]

I still think my proposal of "sexually normal" & "sexually abnormal" ("SN" & "SA") is best.
Why?
It won't attach a stigma to.......

A majority of heterosexuals like sexual acts that aren't missionary vanilla. That would make the abnormals the normals, and vice versa.

 

[columbus]

Maybe I'm just dumb as a fence post,

Well, you do agree with @Revoltingest a lot.
Jus' sayin'
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

A majority of heterosexuals like sexual acts that aren't missionary vanilla. That would make the abnormals the normals, and vice versa.

Non-missionary is normal.
It's not about positions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you do agree with @Revoltingest a lot.
Jus' sayin'
Tom

Whuh?

 

[Father Heathen]

Non-missionary is normal.
It's not about positions.

I mean more than mere positions. Anal, oral, misc. kinks, etc. that are considered outside "normal" sex, assuming by "normal" you mean regular ol' procreational sex.

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean more than mere positions. Anal, oral, misc. kinks, etc. that are considered outside "normal" sex, assuming by "normal" you mean regular ol' procreational sex.

Consider the terms in the context of the expanding alphabet of "LGBT"
The additional letters aren't about the physical practices so much as the
identity of the people doing them.

 

[Father Heathen]

Consider the terms in the context of the expanding alphabet of "LGBT"
The additional letters aren't about the physical practices so much as the
identity of the people doing them.

You said normal vs abnormal. What is your criteria for normalcy?

 

[Revoltingest]

You said normal vs abnormal. What is your criteria for normalcy?

Just in case....I'll point out that this is not a serious proposal.
If "LGBTQRZ" people are "normal",
then non-LGBTQRZ people are "abnormal".
There's no requirement that anyone either enjoy or avoid any particular sexual practice.

 

[Father Heathen]

Just in case....I'll point out that this is not a serious proposal.
If "LGBTQRZ" people are "normal",
then non-LGBTQRZ people are "abnormal".
There's no requirement that anyone either enjoy or avoid any particular sexual practice.

How would you rank the three primary colors from most to least normal?

But yeah, I get that it's all in jest.

 

[Revoltingest]

How would you rank the three primary colors from most to least normal?

Green
Red
Blue

If I get your point, it's that there's no such thing as normal or abnormal.
This seems familiar.....like there being no race.
But such things can be defined, & the terms are useful.
Example.....
We have sub-normal intelligence, normal intelligence, & annoying smarty pants

 

[Father Heathen]

If I get your point, it's that there's no such thing as normal or abnormal.

Not quite. Of course there is normal and abnormal. My point is that "normal/abnormal" designation isn't applicable in every instance of variation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not quite. Of course there is normal and abnormal. My point is that "normal/abnormal" designation isn't applicable in every instance of variation.

I don't disagree in general.
(Ain't we boring!)

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I'm a queer guy, and I mostly just go with "queer".

How about "abomination"?

Hella disappointed in you with this one.

 

[Politesse]

I don't see a need to group all "non-straights" together.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can't say I care for it. It's too derivative. Heterosexual people aren't really straight, some have stupendous kinks.

I still prefer queer. Although I don't really care what you call me as long as it isn't late for dinner.

Tom

I always thought queer had a somewhat negative connotation to it. Although not "technically correct" I rather be called gay. It seems like an overall term depending on context. I also notice here more people can tolerate hearing that than the other words.

So let me ask, why do you prefer the word queer? Is it more identity label rather than negative?

Also to @vaguelyhumanoid