Ship of Fools: What's In A Name?

Thread: What's In A Name? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028529

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

According to a recent CBS poll Americans are much more strongly in favor of letting "gay men and lesbians" serve in the U.S. military than they are of letting "homosexuals" serve.

In short, 59% of Americans support "homosexuals" serving in the U.S. military but 70% would support "gay men and lesbians" doing so. When asked about "homosexuals" not only serving but serving OPENLY, 44% of Americans approve, as opposed to the 58% who favored "gay men and lesbians" being able to do so.

These statistically significant shifts, well outside the margin of polling error. What's going on here? The consensus so far seems to be that the term "homosexual" is too clinical, whereas "gay men and lesbians" are people you actually know.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Fuck, but that's depressing.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

And no mention of bisexuals? Perhaps they're worried we'll fight for both sides? [Big Grin]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

At least a majority of Americans do favor allowing gay men and lesbians to openly serve in the army, should they choose.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Is there a literacy test before you can take this poll?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
According to a recent CBS poll Americans are much more strongly in favor of letting "gay men and lesbians" serve in the U.S. military than they are of letting "homosexuals" serve.

In short, 59% of Americans support "homosexuals" serving in the U.S. military but 70% would support "gay men and lesbians" doing so. When asked about "homosexuals" not only serving but serving OPENLY, 44% of Americans approve, as opposed to the 58% who favored "gay men and lesbians" being able to do so.

These statistically significant shifts, well outside the margin of polling error. What's going on here? The consensus so far seems to be that the term "homosexual" is too clinical, whereas "gay men and lesbians" are people you actually know.

Simple. When people see/hear the word 'homosexual', they immedialy think 'SEX'. In their mind's eye, they go from envisioning people with ordinary, well-rounded lives to envisioning two men (possibly two women, but to be honest the stereotypical homosexual is male) going at it relentlessly, and doing nothing else.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

This reminds me of a programme I saw a few years ago (I have no memory of what it was, or why I was watching it) which sent a man with a camera out onto the streets of America, to ask members of the public whether they would approve of a heterosexual president. They then played a long reel of various morons who'd been asked the question going off on one about evil perversions, and how there would be a heterosexual president over their dead body.

Not scientific or informative, but it was quite funny at the time.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Simple. When people see/hear the word 'homosexual', they immedialy think 'SEX'. In their mind's eye, they go from envisioning people with ordinary, well-rounded lives to envisioning two men (possibly two women, but to be honest the stereotypical homosexual is male) going at it relentlessly, and doing nothing else.

I would conjecture that it is the word “men” in “gay men” that makes a difference. It has, obviously, solidly masculine nuances. “Homosexual” on the other hand, may well carry associations of effeminacy, campness, and so on.

(Do I need to say that I do not, personally, assume that homosexuals are effeminate? I hope not, but I will anyway.)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

over 20 years ago a metastudy of opinion polls (Tom Smith (1987) "That Which We Call Welfare by Any Other Name Would Smell Sweeter - an Analysis of the Impact of Question Wording on Response Patterns", The Public Opinion Quarterly, v51.1) found that about 61% of Americans wanted to government to spend more money on helping the poor, over 40% wanted them to spend money on helping the unemployed, but only about 26% wanted to spend more money on welfare.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Simple. When people see/hear the word 'homosexual', they immedialy think 'SEX'. In their mind's eye, they go from envisioning people with ordinary, well-rounded lives to envisioning two men (possibly two women, but to be honest the stereotypical homosexual is male) going at it relentlessly, and doing nothing else.
I would conjecture that it is the word “men” in “gay men” that makes a difference. It has, obviously, solidly masculine nuances. “Homosexual” on the other hand, may well carry associations of effeminacy, campness, and so on.

(Do I need to say that I do not, personally, assume that homosexuals are effeminate? I hope not, but I will anyway.)

I agree that's also a possible factor. I hadn't actually picked up on the fact that it said 'gay men' rather than just 'gays'.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

I'm surely fighting a losing battle here (or more like one lost before I was born), but I'm very uncomfortable using the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals. It was once a fine word, one that filled a specific hole in the English Language. Now it's hard for us to sing "Deck the halls" with a straight (no pun intended) face.

Forget about Leviticus and Romans. They stole my word and I want it back!

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Yeah, there was some song we sung in gradeschool about a "gay senorita" -- Cielito Lindo?

People have twisted "hot" and "awesome" into something unrecognizable, too. Bleeegh.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Missed the edit --

I prefer Ignatius J. Reilly's plan for homosexuals in the military. He proposed that all the world's armies be made up only of campy gay men. He figured they'd be so busy planning fabulous fancy-dress balls in order to meet those fascinating foreign soldiers, and designing the latest in avant garde chic military dress uniforms, there'd be no time for war. The guns and bombs would all rust.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
This reminds me of a programme I saw a few years ago (I have no memory of what it was, or why I was watching it) which sent a man with a camera out onto the streets of America, to ask members of the public whether they would approve of a heterosexual president. They then played a long reel of various morons who'd been asked the question going off on one about evil perversions, and how there would be a heterosexual president over their dead body.

Not scientific or informative, but it was quite funny at the time.

The same could just as easily happen over on this side. Years ago - before the fall of the Berlin Wall - I used to work for a Red Cross-sponsored volunteer bureau called the 'Community Network'. The simple title-bearing banner we displayed on our info stall at local fairs would frequently attract people whose opening conversational gambit was 'We don't want any of that here. Get back to bloody Russia'.

[ 08. March 2010, 08:14: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Missed the edit --

I prefer Ignatius J. Reilly's plan for homosexuals in the military. He proposed that all the world's armies be made up only of campy gay men. He figured they'd be so busy planning fabulous fancy-dress balls in order to meet those fascinating foreign soldiers, and designing the latest in avant garde chic military dress uniforms, there'd be no time for war. The guns and bombs would all rust.

Stereotype much?

Posted by Petros (# 2820) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Stereotype much?

Yes but he did say camp gay men. Butch gay men wouldn't be any good at all [Big Grin]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Maybe we should get all the ladies who aren't allowed to be Gideons to start putting dictionaries in American hotel rooms.

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I'm surely fighting a losing battle here (or more like one lost before I was born), but I'm very uncomfortable using the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals. It was once a fine word, one that filled a specific hole in the English Language. Now it's hard for us to sing "Deck the halls" with a straight (no pun intended) face.

Forget about Leviticus and Romans. They stole my word and I want it back!

Both Kids in the Hall and Fry & Laurie do a sketch about this.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0