Actually, he has a point, the word "gay" was usurped, it's real definition is nothing compared to the slang and people get angry when it's real definition is used, rainbows are gay, really, they are. So are puppies, kittens, flowers, etc. .... they bring up happy thoughts. I fear using another perfect example myself because I know I'll be called a troll or censored, but when a word becomes slang it's usually because someone wants to take offense at it. The word bitch isn't inherently insulting, it's just a female canine (among others). Shit is just shit. Damn means to cut off. Words are just words, the only way they get meaning is when the listener assigns meaning. "That's gay" isn't inherently insulting, and it can be used with the intention of being insulting but is used for that purpose far less than people think, most times it's used as it's actual meaning or the old age slang when it meant silly, odd, off the wall, etc. But here's the catch, why is being different such an insult? I'm different, I like when people think they're insulting me by calling me names, and all I do is grin at them because it doesn't actually hurt me. They're assumptions are their own ignorance, not mine.

Or we could just say "That's Billy Joel".

Dan, I guess I have a problem with the idea that we can trade one pejorative for another, and somehow be more righteous. Wouldn't it be better if we didn't use EITHER. Can't it be "that's dumb."?

Well don't go changin' to try and please me, Dan.

Since being Mormon or not actually is a choice, and a choice that is incredibly detrimental to a child's mental development and critical thinking skills, imnsho Mormon kids can't hear that their made up fairy tales are fucking moronic enough. Peer pressure is a good thing when the pressure is being used to free people from ridiculous dogma. Though Mormons by no means have the corner on ridiculous dogma, so I'd go with "that's so religious” or “that’s so fanatic.”

I'd love that

Passive agressively insulting people by taking words used far more often in hurtful ways, but aserting that you're really just using them in their propper, literal meaning when you know damn well how people are going to take them? And then whining about how overly sensitive people are to your assholism disguised as language policing? That's so Mormon.

Here's a crazy thought: instead of saying "That's so gay!" or "That's so Mormon" to indicate that something is lame/stupid/embarrassing, how about saying "That's so lame" or "That's so stupid," or "That's so embarrassing"?

Oh Clayton, don't be so Mormon.

To tie up this thread with a previous one, how about "That's so Orson Scott Card." :-)

Also, please stop saying "Mormon children" (or "Christian children", or "Hindu children", etc.). There's no such thing. There are "children of Christian parents" and "children of Muslim parents", and "children of Mormon parents", etc. Children get to choose their own religion. Most of them (sadly) do it implicitly by not rejecting whatever nonsense they grew up with, but believing in an invisible sky-king and all the silly things he tells you to do really *is* a choice that people can make for themselves. And it's one that we should give everyone's children the opportunity to make. We don't talk about "democrat children" or "republican children".

P.S. - I must concede that "Jewish children" is marginally more acceptable in that "Jewish" can be an ethnicity as well as a religion. It's kind of unfortunate that we use the same word for "person of Hebrew ancestry" as we do for "someone who follows the tenets of Judaism", but I don't see it changing anytime soon. :/

billy joel can't help the way he is.. i vote for ' that's billy joel'

@3 That's insulting to dumb people, those who cannot talk have rights to. ;)

@3, 5, 8, et al.... Language is fluid. Always has been, always will be. Trying to keep the vocabulary to a minimum is useless. People will come up w/ new expressions, the definitions we use now will shift & morph, maybe even become totally different than what was intended. And because insults change more rapidly than most other aspects of language, I think this is way cool. It's not mormon at all.

http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id…

I think @5 is onto something. I would suggest also "That's so fundie."

I vote for @3. Or, in extreme cases, "That's SUPER dumb."

I think "that's so lame" has been hashed out at length elsewhere.

I do like "that's so fundie!"

In fact, I'm going to start using that.

@16: Win!

No matter what you use, it will be insulting to someone or something. You cannot avoid it, it's impossible. Dumb = unable to speak, a disability. Lame = a disability. Fundie .... well I can't argue it's fun to insult those people.

"that's so fundie" ftw. Has an excellent ring to it, MacCrocodile.

@20 - ooooh! We could say "that's so disabled."

Personally, I'm sticking with, "that's so asinine," but perhaps that is in some way an insult to the mules of the world.

(and doesn't it say something about our culture, and why the damn phrase is so offensive, that teenage boys would rather be called stupid, asinine, lame, dorky - anything but GAY!)

Billy Joel? That's so Catholic.

Obama wrote that letter. It's an attack on Mitt Romney!

@1

Nice try. But that would involve people trying to use the word in it's original usage - I truly doubt that people using "that's so gay" to disparage something are trying to point out that it makes them feel lighthearted and happy.

So trying to make a case that it's just reclaiming the word for its previous use is disingenuous at best - they're saying that something is as bad, distasteful, and inappropriate for polite society as they feel a homosexual person is, and don't pretend they aren't.

And, of course, even your point is inaccurate - gay wasn't used as an objective descriptor - a rainbow couldn't be gay in that sense any more than it could be happy or confused. A puppy, perhaps, when chasing its tail or something.

On another note, that performance was hilarious. "I believe in 1978 God changed his mind about black people" hahahaha

@28 Where did I claim that I was assuming that people saying it were trying to reclaim it? Nice assumption there. I said that it's used less as an insult (you could assume I was talking about towards homosexuals, they are pretty gay, at least the ones I know) which would have at least been closer to what I was saying but still reading more into it than is there. Rainbows are gay, I love rainbows, they make me feel happier when I'm down. What you seemed to miss in my original comment was this simple fact: It's all subjective and relevant, you are insulted because you want to be.

@5 and @11--I'm actually not at all convinced that one "chooses" belief. One might choose what one does in light of belief, and in that sense, one might identify as Mormon, Christian, what-have-you. But so far as to believe is, by definition, to hold something true, I find that one is generally reacting to the appearance or perception of truth, however faulty the mechanisms by which that judgment is made.

It strikes me as being comparable, in that regard, to anything from tastes to romantic attraction. I don't choose to love my wife, but I choose to marry her; if I were gay, I would not choose to have erotic or romantic attraction primarily to men, but I would choose whether and with whom to act upon that; I don't choose to love the music of (sadly defunct) Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, but I choose to spend my money on their product.

In that sense, one may choose to identify as Christian, but not to believe in an essentially anthropomorphic deity and the concept of messianic atonement; one may choose to identify as Mormon, but not whether or not one believes that the aforementioned messiah appeared to the people of the Americas.

I've been a loyal Savage Love reader for well over a decade, and this is the first time I've been disgusted - truly disgusted - by something you wrote, Dan. Billy Joel is awful. Simply awful. Ugh.

@1 Your definition of slang seems extremely liberal. "Bitch" as an insult is slang? So words can remain slang even though they've been used consistently with that definition for around 600 years? Your etymology of "damn" is likewise flawed - it has only ever meant "condemn" or something of the like in English, and didn't mean anything to do with cutting in Latin. Its use as an interjection also is quite questionable to label as "slang".

Slang can either mean informal language or ephemeral language ("phat" is a good example of the latter, since it has fallen out of use after only being common for a few years) or refer to jargon meant to obscure meaning to outsiders, as with the many street names of drugs (argot might be a more appropriate term for that). I don't know what the hell you're talking about words becoming slang when "someone wants to take offense to it". How would "phat" "fo shizzle" "totes" (for totally) "keen" (for cool) fit into this notion of slang?

Anyway, "gay" meaning "homosexual" doesn't fall under any of these categories - it has been used with that meaning for about a century now, it is not considered informal and it is not meant to conceal meaning. Is there any reason to refer to it as a slang meaning other than that it is a more recent meaning than the original meaning? Because that applies to the meanings of quite a large number of words that are very common and basic words in English.

If that were the case, is "nice" slang for "pleasant" while only the sense of "precise" is actually the real definition?

This is why as a linguist I really hate the term "slang" because it often never really means anything other than "words I don't like" or "words used by people I don't like" and is applied as an arbitrary way to dismiss the language of others or to argue that some use is somehow illegitimate. And because "gay" for homosexual is illegitimate, gay people really don't have any reason to be upset about a term referring to them being used as a catch-all for everything bad, annoying or lame.

Why should gay people be upset, it's just slang they stole from good, upstanding folks who want to refer to happy times and bright colors. Come on. You know and I know that the only reason "that's gay" is used as a term of general abuse is its association with homosexual people, and at best it reflects the homophobia of a previous generation and at worst it reflects and perpetuates homophobia in the present.

@34: Nice. (in all senses)

Silvio Levy

I'm baffled as to what anyone could have against Billy Joel.