On the night of Sept. 22, Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge into the Hudson River. His suicide was partially a response to harassment by his college roommate, who streamed video over the Internet of Clementi in a sexual encounter with another man. Clementi is sadly just one of many homosexual teens who killed himself in recent months because of anti-gay bullying. However, before rushing to vilify Clementi’s roommate for his callous and idiotic actions, it is important to note the larger forces that contributed to Clementi’s suicide.
The public school system is partially to blame for Clementi’s death. A recent survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) reveals that nine out of 10 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender teens experience harassment at their schools because of their orientation. This harassment instills teens a sense of inferiority in many GLBT teens — that they are “less than” their heterosexual counterparts — a belief that tends to linger long after graduation. The silence of teachers and school administrators further ingrains this sense of inferiority and is part of the reason why the suicide rate is so much higher among GLBT teens. Many of these students have no one to turn to for support. The average GLBT student is probably not receiving adequate support of their orientation or gender identity from their families, so teachers and school administrators need to take on the responsibility of mentoring them and providing them with a safe learning environment.
Religious groups like Focus on the Family, Exodus International and the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) are also partly to blame for Clementi’s suicide. These groups encourage the discrimination of homosexuals beneath the guise of the old adage, “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” often citing questionable research by the official sounding, yet bogus American College of Pediatrics to support their hateful messages. CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family affiliate, recently launched a campaign against the Senate’s Safe Schools Improvement Act, a piece of legislation that would require public schools to adopt anti-bulling and harassment measures to protect students from discrimination based upon race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion.
“It would lay the foundation for codifying sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes,” CitizenLink says on its website.
How does one respond to such a bigoted statement? These are kids we are talking about — kids who are at a greater statistical risk of committing suicide. As long as bully-groups like CitizenLink are around, GLBT teens will continue to mentally debilitate to dangerous states. Christian groups need to stop resurrecting Anita Bryant’s worm-riddled corpse every time there is a piece of gay-friendly legislation they don’t agree with. They should instead follow the example of Andrew Marin, the evangelical author of “Love is an Orientation” and start treating homosexuals in a compassionate manner worthy of their deity.
Popular culture is also to blame for Clementi’s death. We live in culture in which most people do not think twice before uttering the phrase, “That’s so gay.” It is nearly impossible for a homosexual-identified individual to go through his or her day without hearing someone utter this acidic phrase. What if people started saying “that’s so straight” every time they thought something was stupid? Would straight people eventually start thinking that they were stupid and inferior?
It stands to reason that they would. How many times do you think Clementi heard “that’s so gay” uttered in his tragically short life? We need to either banish this phrase from the popular lexicon or turn it into something positive. The next time you use this phrase let it be as a response to something you deem creative, interesting, cool or beautiful.
Now is the time to take a stand against gay bullying. Too many GLBT teens have taken their lives because of our culture’s complacency. We need to provide GLBT-identified individuals with an environment in which they feel accepted, safe and normal; an environment in which they can make out with individuals of the same sex in their dorm rooms without the fear of discovery. Because after all, what would there be to discover?
Daniel Renfrow is a Anthropology junior and may be reached at [email protected].
Very well written! I'm impressed that someone is willing to be so bold and stand up for something that needs an immense amount of support. Thanks for Sharing, Daniel!
I admit it was well written to a point. The whole argument about "thats so gay" is "so gay" in itself its not even funny. In fact that argument makes the whole article rather gay in my opinion. If you actually took your head out of your bum for one second you'd realize the very notion is extremely Orwellian and more wrong than the very act you're complaining about. You abridge one thing in the name of PC and the next thing you know you're going to start accusing people of thoughtcrime for thinking something is "so gay" because they aren't free to say it. You idiots don't realize how stupid you really are. Censorship no matter what intentions they may hold is always in the end wrong. I don't defend the bullying, I actually condemn it but there are other more effective means about making sure it does not happen instead of absolute censorship and abridging of man's freedom of speech.
In short: Thats so gay.
thats nice. why do you think using bigoted language is okay j/w
Because I believe people should be free to speak their minds instead of having to self-censor themselves in order to not offend anyone. I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
I'd thought I'd chime in on what I perceive as the true context of the phrase "You're so gay" and how it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
If one can think back to the 1950's when "gay" was used as a term of "happy, merriment, and silliness" one can see how the phrase came to be. The 1950's was portrayed as very Stepford-Wives, White-picket fenced, white-washed (not talking about race here) silly grins that were just over-the-top and silly/ridiculous by today's standard…hence the term, "That's so gay"…
However, I realize that the term has a totally different context, I'll admit I'm one of those that uses the phrase fairly liberally in response to silly and outlandish comments and working on using it far less due to the phrase's keyword's change of context in today's society/generation and in respect of my GLBT friends (some of which I KNOW first hand have used this phrase themselves just as liberally…just saying…)
That's my two cents…
i don't think that using awful bigoted language should be illegal, just that you shouldn't be surprised when Society rightfully calls you out on being a bigot. i mean look at that zed kid; he wrote 162 words in defense of using ignorant bigoted language. there are people here who are aggressively opposed to examining their use of language and how it effects those around them.
on the other hand, it took a lot of time and effort to get white people to stop using the n-word in public so maybe it's just a matter of time?
So it makes it perfectly fine for black people to use the word just because they aren't white? Just like people who aren't white cannot possibly be racist at all. I could care less if society calls me a bigot, they have that right to say that even if I don't hold or express bigoted views (like I said I vehemently condemn the bullying), thats just their own ignorance and I frankly could care less about it. Oh dear I hurt someone's feelings because I don't agree with how they think. Too bad, grow a spine and grow up; They're only words and most likely from someone you'll never truly know, who cares what they think of you? The world would be much better off accepting that fact.
>So it makes it perfectly fine for black people to use the word just because they aren't white? .
it isn't your decision whether or not they can say it. some black people (me) don't say it at all because we hate it.
>Oh dear I hurt someone's feelings because I don't agree with how they think. Too bad, grow a spine and grow up
iunderstanding the society you live in, and understanding why you shouldn't run around denigrating entire minority groups because you seriously can't resist throwing racial/sexist/homophobic slurs our there, are part of the social contract!
any white person who openly wonders why they shouldn't use a word they developed to describe black people's inferiority either 1.) holds some transparently racist views or 2.) has a learning disability
"it isn't your decision whether or not they can say it. some black people (me) don't say it at all because we hate it."
But does that make it right for only them to say it? Double standards much? Next you're going to tell me theres no such thing as reverse-racism.
"understanding the society you live in, and understanding why you shouldn't run around denigrating entire minority groups because you seriously can't resist throwing racial/sexist/homophobic slurs our there, are part of the social contract! "
My point still stands, they're only words. Grow a spine and grow up. Have we really become that weak that we can't handle what is essentially name calling? Unless those words are inciting violence then what is there to worry about? If you know what they're saying is not true or simply ignorant then how do those words possibly hurt you? It's more offensive to suggest one should abridge one's personal freedom of speech in order to not potentially "offend" some passerby who you do not even know/possibly will never know at all.
just to get this out of the way: you don't offend me. but there are ways of being offensive that don't involve unnecessarily denigrating large groups of people you "do not even know/possibly will never know at all." (why would personally knowing them make a difference, they're still human beings)
here's what i think: you can't articulate why you use homophobic slurs because you don't know why. like me, you were raised in a homophobic culture where "gay" as an insult or undesirable quality was just the way things were. If i hadn't been forced into questioning that, i might be like that too.
clearly you've never questioned the culture that made homosexuality synonymous with being bad or intolerable. maybe because the question would make you confront some negative things about where/when/how you were brought up.
if I'm wrong, feel free to explain why you think it's ok without employing the argument that this is a huge attack on your internet freedom, so you had better get your internet guns so you and your internet militia buddies can be shot by the internet FBI.
It's wasted time on you honestly, I feel like a broken record having to repeat this: It's not whether the message is right or wrong, bad or good, censorship is ALWAYS WRONG especially when you have to censor yourself. I never said I approve of whether homosexual slurs are inherently good to use, I however do not approve of people being abridged the freedom to say what they want. If the words are not inciting violence then what is there to worry about? People DO NOT get physically hurt from words and I can assure you that people have no reason to honestly take said words to heart. How do those words impact you? Tell me that, how do they impact your life so greatly that its worth censoring what others say about you? The main argument for example "thats so gay", does it automatically impact and hurt some random homosexual who happens to be near someone who said those words about an unrelated matter? Those words were not aimed at the homosexual person in question, so why should they be offended? Why should it matter? In fact is it not counter-productive for that person to become offended especially since most are encouraged to be proud of the fact that they are gay? If they become offended of a statement that wasn't even aimed at them I'd say they have more problems besides having their feelings easily hurt.
That being said it makes no sense at all to abridge what others have to say. Next you'll say we should get rid of all stand-up comedians because almost all of their jokes are intentionally offensive. They're still words that are offensive, you just happen to take them as jokes. But the words are still the same. You can't have it both ways and pick and choose what people can and cant say. Thats an even greater aspect of our society, precedent. If we pick and choose what we can and cant say in our society then we lose our freedom, people in Austria and Germany can be put in prison for making statements denying the holocaust if it draws enough attention from authorities, China and North Korea imprison people who speak out against the government (or just shoot them in the case of N. Korea), their opinion may be very very wrong (especially as far as the holocaust is concerned) but its still jailing/killing someone over their opinion.
That is the reality of how bad it can get if we decide to abridge our freedom of speech. You say we can't say one thing and before you know it one thing becomes many things because we made an exception for that one thing and you're having people thrown in jail for thoughtcrime if they happen to think of something they aren't allowed to say.
the fact that you don't see the connection between perpetuating a homophobic culture and homophobic violence reinforces my belief that you have a learning disability.
you just keep repeated the same overused MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS MANNN garbage as if this time you'll be right. would you use this tack with any other demeaning slur? like, would you defend calling your tight-fisted friend a "jew" because he embodies a the negative jewish stereotype?
your core argument is that the straight majority should tell the gay minority how and when the gay minority is allowed to be offended by the straight majority's bigotry. and you don't see how entitled and disgusting that is?
i realize that by being mean to you in the beginning, i lost all hope of reaching you but bigoted people make me mad. i made my arguments in the hopes that you were just using the word "gay" as a negative without thinking, instead of using it in a deliberate exercise of your straight privilege. turns out, you genuinely like putting entire groups of people down just to show you can.
you depress the hell out of me. no joke.
If theres anyone with the learning disability its you (reading comprehension says hi). What you need to know has already been said repeatedly.
1. People should not have freedom of speech abridged when its so much easier to simply not care what others think and not take to heart statements no matter if they're wrong or right. If the words are not inciting physical violence then where is the harm if the person doesn't take the words to heart? If I called a tight-fisted friend a jew they probably wouldn't take any offense to it, why would they need to feel offended? Because I called them a jew? So they should feel bad for that? Not because I used a euphemism for them not spending much? If its true that they're not spending that much money then really am I in the wrong there? Is it not the truth that they're being a penny pincher? I don't see the problem there. If they can make the connection between the euphemism and their behavior then why should they get offended specifically for being called a jew? I'd think if they made the connection they'd be more offended if anything by the fact I'm accusing them of being a penny pincher, not a jew.
2. Once again you failed to read what I wrote. If the words were not directed at them then where is the harm? Where is the alleged hate and bigotry? Thats like saying I shouldn't mention the word hair ever in public in case there are any cancer patients around who lost their hair to chemotherapy in order to avoid them possibly being offended. It is disgusting though to suggest people to censor their speech in any way or form. I don't agree that you think that the majority of straight people are bigots but won't stop you from expressing your opinion.
3. I told you from the very start that I don't harbor bigoted views nor did I ever express any (once again reading comprehension is your friend, it doesn't seem to be your strong point so perhaps it would be wise to make nice with it no?) I don't agree with a lot of things people say or what they may say of me, but I won't stop them from having that right to say those things nor do I take offense of any negative opinions they may hold about me because thats their ignorance and I'll simply have nothing to do with them if thats how they feel. See how easy it is? It seems though you have no qualms calling people names if you don't agree with them and vice versa. That seems a bit hypocritical don't you think? If anything you're the depressing one for failing to realize what a slippery slope it is in picking and choosing what people can and cannot say.
hey how about addressing my points instead of just repeating FREE SPEECH over and over forever?
once again, i am not saying that the department of language should kick down your front door and confiscate your slurs. what i am saying is that homophobic language and sentiments contribute to a culture hostile to homosexuals. this is 10th grade social studies stuff, duder.
LGBT people in america have enough to deal with without some entitled guy acting like using demeaning language is his holy duty to uphold.
And my points address your points. Use your mind and you'd realize that. (And if anything my previous arguments trump your previous arguments, end of discussion there.)
You didn't say that however the article suggests it, and I quote: "We need to either banish this phrase from the popular lexicon…" In short we need to remove it from use. I don't care what your intention is, any censorship in a free society is always wrong. It's all eventualities and slippery slopes, especially in our society where precedent is always king. You ban one word or phrase from use and that establishes precedent and makes it automatically acceptable to ban any other words that are found offensive.
Before you know it any negative word would be banned even if its nowhere near offensive, anything negative is still negative. And in our free society taking away any freedom no matter whether its good or bad makes us no longer free. It boils down to whether we aren't free and are limited in what we can or cannot say, or be totally free to say as we like even if its offensive. I'd rather be free thanks and simply cope (or better yet simply not care) with what people have to say about me.
oh no we might live in a society where it's no longer acceptable to bash minorities for laughs nooooooo
hey is society a better or worse place now that the n-word is no longer allowed in polite conversation?
I don't know what society you live in, theres PLENTY of black people who use the word in polite conversation.
from before: "any white person who openly wonders why they shouldn't use a word they developed to describe black people's inferiority either 1.) holds some transparently racist views or 2.) has a learning disability "
so the other night i got up in a dude's face and yelled at him for using gay slurs. he looked at the ground and mumbled awkwardly before walking away. u mad?
And thats the end of discussion. You fail to see the hypocrisy. FYI that doesn't make you a better person for getting on his case, that makes you a bit of a douche.
whatever, i like putting bigots in their place because they always turn out to be scared little people who need to be yelled at.
there is no hypocrisy in the fact that not everything in the world is there for straight white males to use and enjoy. most things, yes but not everything.
you've never in your undeservedly cushy life faced anything resembling discrimination but the mere suggestion that maybe you shouldn't act like a total animal is so offensive to you that now you're taking your ball and going home.
There is hypocrisy but you're too full of yourself to realize that. Like I said, there are PLENTY of black people who use the word in "polite conversation" and yet when someone white uses the word there are also many who automatically become offended and get on their case even though they may have just used the word themselves.
And thats rich, put me in my place? At what point did you ever come even close to disproving my argument or swaying my opinion? My argument still stands because its absolute fact. Why do you think so many cases in regards to freedom of speech just about always go in favor of the defendant (the person who is being offensive: westboro, nazis, and even more radical groups)? Because of precedent. The constitution is the precedent that guarantees that freedom, if there were any exceptions made to alter that freedom that would create new precedent and would make it possible so any offensive word is up for grabs to ban since they succeeded in banning one offensive word/phrase. If you had half a mind you'd realize how serious the ramifications of such a change would be. It wouldn't be a positive one I can tell you that much.
Btw hypocrite much? You're more of a bigot than I supposedly am seeing as you quite obviously have a thing against white people that is unwarranted.
the word itself isn't an evil magic incantation. the intent of the speaker and the context of the word matters. some black people (WE AREN'T ALL THE SAME YOU KNOW) use it as a term of endearment. i am hard-pressed to think of a non-hateful context for a white person to use the n-word, outside of an academic discussion of the word.
how did you get to raving about ANTI SPEECH LAWS OMG? no one here was talking about actual legislation, you dumb knob. your insistence that individuals trying to change society's norms re: acceptable language is the same as a constitutional amendment is literally insane.
i think that people should stop talking like 14 year olds and rethink their casual use of hateful slurs but you see it as an attack on your immutable right to belittle groups already suffering persecution.
show me where i was being bigoted towards whites.
"any white person who openly wonders why they shouldn't use a word they developed to describe black people's inferiority either 1.) holds some transparently racist views or 2.) has a learning disability"
"there is no hypocrisy in the fact that not everything in the world is there for straight white males to use and enjoy. most things, yes but not everything." in conjunction with "your core argument is that the straight majority should tell the gay minority how and when the gay minority is allowed to be offended by the straight majority's bigotry. and you don't see how entitled and disgusting that is?"
Plus it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are undertones of hostility towards them. No need for proof when the writing is on the wall.
Btw by agreeing on the matter of the context of the word being relevant you just proved my point. 1. Then where is the harm in a straight man or woman saying "thats so gay" when the phrase wasn't even directed at anyone LGBT? You therefore have no right to abridge their freedom of speech by saying what words/phrases they shouldn't say. 2. If thats not the case then you agree that its perfectly acceptable for them to use the word but not okay for anyone else, in which case you're being hypocritical. If the phrase "it's so gay" isn't said in a negative context then why suggest that people shouldn't say it.?
And its a pretty easy logical assumption, any notion gets attention if enough people complain about it and the notion of suggesting that man's freedom of speech be abridged is disgusting no matter what the intention may be. I'm simply enlightening you idiots on how wrong that very notion is by explaining the very real potential consequences given how our society works. You think its insane? It's the very facts of our way of life sunshine, its how our society works. Any form of censorship by any form of government is always fiercely contested in order to prevent any new precedents from being made (for example, you ban one word and it makes it perfectly fine to ban others because of precedent, the same goes for other forms of free speech) to preserve our freedom of speech. It's not my opinion, its a fact.
I also think it is important for people to be aware of how their words affect people. It is not at all about making phrases illegal– it is about making people aware. You can say whatever the hell you want, just know that you are being really rude when you do.