Why is homosexuaity still news today?- Page 3

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/7/15 at 5:42pm

"There are people who are only romantically, and not sexually, attracted to their gender, so the word "gay" would apply to them, while "homosexual" would not."

This is a new one on me. I would not consider this person gay.

[acekatherineplumber2]

Posted: 2/7/15 at 6:08pm

So if a person exclusively is attracted to people of their gender and is sexually attracted to nobody, you wouldn't think they are gay? Even if they identify as such?

[bwayrose7]

Posted: 2/7/15 at 6:10pm

I'm no expert on the linguistics of it all, but I believe said person would probably be/prefer to be described as "homoromantic"? And possibly asexual?

It's fascinating, and honestly quite nice in my opinion, that modern language is evolving to openly make all of these distinctions of gender, romance, and sexuality. As it has been pointed out already, there used to be just a few mainstream terms that were meant to encompass any non-hetero persons, and now we recognize a whole spectrum of phrases and words. Language is a beautiful thing.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 2/7/15 at 6:13pm

Personally, I cringe a little when I hear "homosexual" because it is a word coined to describe a psychiatric illness. (Linguiats will also argue that it's a mangled creation, half from Greek and half from Latin.)

But I admit I've used the term myself. "Gay" seems to imply a certain level of political awareness, a level that doesn't apply to closeted men. I will usually refer to an openly gay man as gay, but a closeted one as "homosexual".

(I'm referring to men only here because women have the additional variations of lesbian and a number of other issues re nomenclature.)

But it's the medical connotation of "homosexuality" that bothers most people. Like I said, I'm not crazy about it, but I give a pass to people who use it. The objection is pretty academic.

Updated On: 2/7/15 at 06:13 PM

[acekatherineplumber2]

Posted: 2/7/15 at 6:38pm

Yeah, those people would be homoromantic and asexual. But homoromantic and gay are synonymous and I know many people who identify as homoromantic, asexual, and gay and I think there is absolutely no issue with them doing that.

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/7/15 at 7:22pm

"So if a person exclusively is attracted to people of their gender and is sexually attracted to nobody, you wouldn't think they are gay? Even if they identify as such?"

Correct. I consider gay to be a non-clinical term, synonymous with homosexual that indicates sexual attraction. If they are not sexually attracted to the same sex I would not consider them gay or homosexual.

Now if they are sexually attracted to the same sex but choose to remain celibate, that's different. But if you're saying there is no sexual attraction at all, they can certainly identify themselves any way they want and I won't even blink, but I would not identify them as gay.

Updated On: 2/7/15 at 07:22 PM