What if I Didn't Know the Parlance of the Day?

The headline.

“Gay novelist wins Booker Prize"

I’d be bright, merry and lively if I won a Booker, too.

From the body of the article.

"British author Alan Hollinghurst has won the 2004 Booker Prize, the most prestigious literary award issued by Britain, for his gay novel “The Line of Beauty”.

So, evidently the novel is bright, merry and lively, also.

Wouldn’t the word homosexual be more aptly applied here?

Posted by on 10/20 at 07:07 AM

  1. Yet another word stolen from us by people seeking to change the social consequentials of their choice.

    Notice I said nothing of the rights involved with making that choice.... but since whne does the fact hat someone has the right to do somehting, or to be something remove them from the social consequences of that choice?

    Posted by bithead  on  10/20  at  01:16 PM

  2. I don’t mean to speak for him, but I would be very surprised if Mr. Venlet thought that homosexuals owed society anything because of how they conduct their private lives.  I reject the notion that I harm society in any meaningful way by engaging in consensual adult sexual activity.  I may harm the people involved, but that’s their problem--not yours.

    Posted by Jason Kuznicki  on  10/20  at  05:10 PM

  3. Jason, you’re correct.  Your life, is your life.  You live it as you see fit.

    Oh, and there is no need to call me Mr. Venlet.

    Posted by  on  10/20  at  05:34 PM

  4. Well, perhaps it slipped by you,(doubtless my doing) but I make a rather strong distinction between the government having anything to say about it, vs what society can say outside of that governmental power.

    Consider why the word ‘gay’ was adopted. It was adopted not to alter the power of government, but to alter society’s perceptions.

    Am I to take from your statements, John, that there is such a thing as ‘gay rights’?

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/20  at  07:19 PM

  5. As someone who happens to know a bit about gay history, I can definitely tell you the origin of the word “gay.” And it was frankly adopted out of pure necessity. 

    During the early part of the twentieth century, “gay” served as a code word for all those who wanted to engage in consensual same-sex relations without getting beaten to a pulp by others.  Any number of other words might have served the same purpose, but for whatever reason, this was the one that stuck. 

    People who wanted this--a goal that harms no one else--identified themselves by the code word, which was mostly unknown to others at the time.  They did it because they had to, not because they wanted to.

    The word “gay” was adopted not to alter society’s perceptions, but to avoid the bigoted elements of society entirely--and to meet up with those individuals who had similar sexual proclivities.  That’s all.

    Eventually, it became the standard; it went mainstream.  And the word “gay” acquired a new meaning, much as the Latin word “hospes” was once turned into the word “host,” and then capitalized as “Host,” referring to the Eucharist.  Words change their meanings all the time, and while it’s sometimes hard to keep up, still, that’s life.  Deal with it.  There’s no sinister agenda, just a mild culture shock, certainly less, say, than traveling to Japan or even to France.

    (Incidentally, George Chauncey’s _Gay New York_ is a wonderful resource about precisely the era I’m referencing here.  It’s an easily approachable discussion of early gay history that’s quite well researched and yet still easy for the average non-historian to understand… If, that is, you’re interested.)

    Posted by Jason Kuznicki  on  10/20  at  09:44 PM

  6. Bithead - There are only individual rights.

    Posted by  on  10/21  at  05:38 AM

  7. Jason Kuznicki:I reject the notion that I harm society in any meaningful way by engaging in consensual adult sexual activity.  I may harm the people involved, but that’s their problem--not yours.</I>

    I couldn’t agree more Mr. Kuznicki.

    But what about when you (i.e. the “minority”) put a gun to my head and force me to subsidize your “lifestyle choice” (via “Gay Marriage”)? What (benefit) am I getting in exchange?

    I suppose it is your “superior intellect” that grants you that … “right”?

    And are you really promoting “diversity” (Individuality) by forcing me to concede that your “marriage” is equivalent to mine? Or are you more concerned with simply “negating” the Individual consequences of your own actions?

    Posted by  on  10/21  at  11:18 AM

  8. "there are only individual rights"

    Wherein lies part of the point I’m making, John. The other half is a little less obvious, and takes a bit to set up. I’ll try to shorten this a bit if I can.

    Consider the majority of the bed wetting going on at hte moment over ‘gay rights’ is the ‘right to marry’...

    Now, notice they’re not fighting for “the right to be involved in a civil union”, but the ‘right to marry’.

    So, once again, (as I’ve already made mention of, above) we see where the target involved is not the government, but the society, though the weapon of choice if govenrment.

    Posted by bithead  on  10/21  at  12:23 PM

  9. Bithead, you are correct in your analysis, above, regarding utilizing of the government as the battering ram.

    Posted by  on  10/21  at  01:31 PM

  10. The weapon of choice is certainly not Democracy, because whenever the issue is put to a vote the Homosexual minority gets handed its heart on a plate.

    So if the Government of the United States is a Democracy, and Democracy is not the actual weapon being used, then how do you two conclude that:

    The Bithead: … the weapon of choice is govenrment.

    The Venlet: … you are correct in your analysis, above, regarding utilizing of the government as the battering ram.

    Posted by  on  10/21  at  03:37 PM

  11. Does ‘the government’ include the judiciary?

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/21  at  04:11 PM

  12. Serpent, you’ve got one heck of a chip on your shoulder.  If you think that *I* think that I’ve got a superior intellect… Well then perhaps you should go out and accomplish something of your own.  That way, you wouldn’t have to doubt your intellect so much.

    Until then, well, we’ve discussed this issue ad nauseam on other forums.  And I don’t play your games anymore, sorry.

    Posted by Jason Kuznicki  on  10/21  at  08:10 PM

  13. Bithead: Does ‘the government’ include the judiciary?

    Sure. Are you saying that a single corrupt individual (activist) judge indicates the entire U.S. government (or all governments everywhere) is (are) corrupt? How about ten corrupt judges? How about 50? What’s the threshold?

    Does Abu Gharib indicate that the entire U.S. military is corrupt?

    Posted by  on  10/22  at  02:28 PM

  14. Jason Kuznicki: Serpent, you’ve got one heck of a chip on your shoulder.

    So knock that chip off, Big-Boy.

    Jason Kuznicki: If you think that *I* think that I’ve got a superior intellect… Well then perhaps you should go out and accomplish something of your own.

    I only do what I am Destined to do.

    Jason Kuznicki: That way, you wouldn’t have to doubt your intellect so much.

    My own consciousness (intellect) is one of the few things that I don’t have doubts about. Of course it’s possible that your subconscious is merely imagining “me” saying that for it’s own benefit.

    Posted by  on  10/22  at  02:33 PM

  15. No, Serpent, I’m suggesting that the OUTCOME of government action can be corrupted by such an individual or group thereof.

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/23  at  08:17 PM

  16. Bithead,

    I agree that almost any organization can be corrupted.

    But I’d assert that the force which corrupts is always an Individual.

    So I guess if you really want to eliminate all corruption (Evil?) for all Time then the most expeditious way to go about it would be by eliminating all Individuality.

    Posted by  on  10/25  at  08:41 AM

  17. But I’d assert that the force which corrupts is always an Individual.

    No.
    No individual could come up with some of what we’re seeing. Consider the corruption, as in this case, invariably involves the misbegotten concept of group rights.

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/25  at  04:32 PM

  18. But Groups are comprised of Individuals - aren’t they?

    Bithead: No individual could come up with some of what we’re seeing.

    Well perhaps you’re not evil so it is difficult for you to perceive?

    What do you surmise is the Source of this “Corruption”? Is it just a magical “coincidence”? ... some tragic “random accident”?

    Does TLOP really make “mistakes”?

    Posted by  on  10/26  at  07:53 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: A Real Tough Guy

Previous entry: What's This All About?

<< Back to main