Comments on: Washington Post Needs to Go “Gay”

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:39:58 +0000

I think Gord hit the nail on the head. I am a very progressive person and identify myself as gay, but I have absolutely no problem with homosexual and use it myself in many circumstances.

By: che

che — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:25:49 +0000

We’ve discussed this before at my work, and some had the view that the use of the word gay, as opposed to homosexual, excludes lesbians.

By: Art

Art — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:51:21 +0000

what’s wrong with the term “homosexual”?

By: Gord

Gord — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:47:52 +0000

I think homosexual and gay have distinct meanings. Homosexual means attracted to the same sex. Gay means having some kind of a gay identity. All gays are homosexual, but not all homosexuals are gay. When an anti-gay Republican gets caught in an airport washroom stall or with a hooker, I still wouldn’t call him gay.

By: Amanda Hess

Amanda Hess — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:04:58 +0000

Holy shit, they’ve trademarked Q!

By: Q™

Q™ — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:59:59 +0000

Gay is better for the Post because it uses less characters and thus less ink. Still, with the dual/triple meaning for Gay, I can understand a minutae of reluctance. Don’t they still use Hispanic and Latino interchangably? What about Black and African-American? Straight uses less characters, but doesn’t necessarily have the definition of heterosexual.