I thought it had been changed to LGBTQQIAAP now to be more inclusive?

10 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Can't se the usefulness of adding queer when gay (a euphemism for homosexual) and lesbian are already represented. Mind you, the intent may simply have been to outrage, that would fit. Not the finest examples of intellect perhaps, resentful but not overly smart or even objective.

I don't think you get the main point. The Q for QUEER mostly was added because younger people had embraced the term and self identified it more than the other
"older" letters. Young people always have power in social issues so including the Q was about internal cross-generational inclusiveness. People that identify as queer usually feel that the Q covers all the other letters anyway! Also of course there is the thing of taking slurs and owning them to diffuse their power. The way it's at now, whether queer is a slur or not is about context and tone of voice. It can be either. 

 

In any case there isn't any great convention structure where these labels are made official. It happens over time organically. Influential organizations like GLAAD and websites like The Advocate start using one label or another more often but that doesn't mean it's stuck in cement for the future. 

Edited April 29, 20188 yr by Jingthing

Just now, Fish Head Soup said:

I thought it had been changed to LGBTQQIAAP now to be more inclusive?

 

Not the most ridiculous idea I've seen expressed on the subject. Close but no prize. Still, the objective is not to be included but to feel included. All kneel and pray to the all-conquering feelings.

On ‎25‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 3:15 PM, possum1931 said:

Who's the mum and who's the dad? The children will grow up confused when the see other kids with normal parents. Of course most homosexuals have normal parents.

You are the one who is confused, kids don't have any issue with it.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think you get the main point. The Q for QUEER mostly was added because younger people had embraced the term and identified it more than the other letters. Young people always have power so including the Q was about internal inclusiveness. People that identify as queer usually feel that the Q covers all the other letters anyway! Also of course there is the thing of taking slurs and owning them to diffuse their power. The way it's at now, whether the queer is a slur or not is about context and tone of voice. It can be either. 

 

Could be...

 

Taking slurs and owning them to diffuse their power... LOL remember what I was saying about not smart? That's 10/10 one of the things I was referring to.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think you get the main point. The Q for QUEER mostly was added because younger people had embraced the term and identified it more than the other letters. Young people always have power so including the Q was about internal inclusiveness. People that identify as queer usually feel that the Q covers all the other letters anyway! Also of course there is the thing of taking slurs and owning them to diffuse their power. The way it's at now, whether the queer is a slur or not is about context and tone of voice. It can be either. 

 

In any case there is any great convention structure where these labels are made official. It happens over time organically. Influential organizations like GLAAD and websites like The Advocate start using one label or another more often but that doesn't mean it's stuck in cement for the future. 

 

Ah yes, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Or so they do say.

In any case, it's totally OK not to like the Q inclusion. I don't like it but don't care if others use it. Personally I usually write LGBT. As I said Q-queer includes all the other letters so in many ways, it's redundant! 

Edited April 29, 20188 yr by Jingthing

6 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

You are the one who is confused, kids don't have any issue with it.

 

I think you'll find they do but most journalists aren't prepared to report accordingly. Not with folk like Tatchell around. Nor would I..

2 minutes ago, Fish Head Soup said:

A few years ago when I was looking after our Asian offices I got wind of one office manager trying to change things up a  little, he came up with a scheme called a 'feelings box' where employees could place notes if they felt they had their feelings hurt in some way and then a meeting would be called on Friday afternoons to discuss them.

 

Yes he was gay, and yes I hurt his feelings when I stopped the practice.

 

Aw bless...

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

In any case, it's totally OK not to like the Q inclusion. I don't like it but don't care if others use it. Personally I usually write LGBT. As I said Q-queer includes all the other letters so in many ways, it's redundant! 

 

Or it may be that the rest are redundant and Q is in fact the only useful letter. But then I suppose there'd be dissenting voices... there usually are.

 

 

Edited April 29, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

27 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Or it may be that the rest are redundant and Q is in fact the only useful letter. But then I suppose there'd be dissenting voices... there usually are.

 

 

Yes, as I explained, some mostly younger people prefer only to say Queer and feel that includes it all. It really is a generational thing. Personally, I think the Queer thing is a bit of a trend/fashion thing and won't persist. You know how it goes, younger people always like to be edgy and try to shock older people. But then there are new young people. Kind of like facebook. Younger people have dropped that for other sites. It ain't cool anymore. 

Edited April 29, 20188 yr by Jingthing

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, as I explained, some mostly younger people prefer only to say Queer and feel that includes it all. It really is a generational thing. Personally, I think the Queer thing is a bit of a trend/fashion thing and won't persist. You know how it goes, younger people always like to be edgy and try to shock older people. But then there are new young people. Kind of like facebook. Younger people have dropped that for other sites. It ain't cool anymore. 

Trend/fashion thing. LOL.

 

Time to go.

Sure, word usage is always in flux and subject to trends and fashions like most everything else. 

 

Like the slang use of the word WOKE which I reckon by now is already trending to passe-ville. 

Edited April 29, 20188 yr by Jingthing

1 hour ago, KiwiKiwi said:

I'll tell you a secret. Ssshhh.

Cant say <deleted>  anymore and its turning everyone into a bunch of over sensitive hypocrites who only want to be petted the right way and complimented. Sad sad world it has become.

 

apreciate the advice though, Thanks

7 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

You are the one who is confused, kids don't have any issue with it

Absolute nonsense.

2 hours ago, possum1931 said:

Absolute nonsense.

Proof it.

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Sure, word usage is always in flux and subject to trends and fashions like most everything else. 

 

Like the slang use of the word WOKE which I reckon by now is already trending to passe-ville. 

Not seen that one - looked on UD but couldn't find anything applicable. Care to share?

Edited April 30, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

10 hours ago, Voodoochile said:

Cant say <deleted>  anymore and its turning everyone into a bunch of over sensitive hypocrites who only want to be petted the right way and complimented. Sad sad world it has become.

 

apreciate the advice though, Thanks

 

I thought it would croak last year but I see the rag has been bought. This year then. Responsibility will be easy to allocate - in my humble opinion, 3 or 4 people at most, but in reality only 1, and nobody at all knows about that, how or why.

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Proof it.

 

No need to prove or disprove. Ask any psychologist over the age of 40, but in general, nobody cares. First comes natural responses, then comes fashion and choice of peer groups. Proof is at the back of the queue, and that reflects today's sorry society.

 

Edited April 30, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

Not seen that one - looked on UD but couldn't find anything applicable. Care to share?

I care.
Guess you're not woke.
Ha ha.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

16 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

No need to prove or disprove. Ask any psychologist over the age of 40, but in general, nobody cares. First comes natural responses, then comes fashion and choice of peer groups. Proof is at the back of the queue, and that reflects today's sorry society.

 

So, in other words, no proof.

On 4/29/2018 at 9:04 AM, Jingthing said:

Legally speaking, greenchair is 100 percent wrong. Other nations have found that IF the goal is include same sex couples in all the legal implications (pro and con of course!) of marriage the absolute simplest way is to simply just do that -- include them in marriage! You can create a separate named thing (either separate but "equal" or separate but unequal) but to do that EQUALLY means changing MANY other complicated laws. In the U.S. I recall it meant changing THOUSANDS of laws. But I get it -- greenchair in his hostile and obsessive attitude that gay people need to be kept away from children obviously doesn't WANT equality for gay people. Too bad for greenchair and his fellow homophobic travelers that marriage EQUALITY has advanced dramatically in so many nations now all over the world. Thailand will be slow for the equality thing. Maybe 50 years is pessimistic and maybe not.

The origin of marriage comes from the Latin word maritaticum. The definition of that word is the union of a man and a woman. Which is derived from the word maritatus (masculine ) and martata  (feminine ) or male and female.  The original intention of marriage was to give ownership of the woman to a man. 

Why the queer (you all said you prefer to be refered to as queer now ).community would even contemplate marriage is beyond me. It is impossible for male, male, female, female to be married. 

A civil union, is a legal partnership between 2 people. Perfectly surfice in my knowledgeable opinion. 

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

A civil union, is a legal partnership between 2 people. Perfectly surfice in my knowledgeable opinion. 

 

It really doesn't matter what your opinion is.  Language evolves.  Those changes are driven by popular usage.  People will call civil unions "marriage", as they have already started to do.  Within a very short time, your opinions will be as relevant as the dead language you pin your arguments to.

27 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The origin of marriage comes from the Latin word maritaticum. The definition of that word is the union of a man and a woman. Which is derived from the word maritatus (masculine ) and martata  (feminine ) or male and female.  The original intention of marriage was to give ownership of the woman to a man. 

Why the queer (you all said you prefer to be refered to as queer now ).community would even contemplate marriage is beyond me. It is impossible for male, male, female, female to be married. 

A civil union, is a legal partnership between 2 people. Perfectly surfice in my knowledgeable opinion. 

"It is impossible for male, male, female, female to be married. "

On the contrary, many of them did already, there goes your "knowledgeable' opinion.

19 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

It really doesn't matter what your opinion is.  Language evolves.  Those changes are driven by popular usage.  People will call civil unions "marriage", as they have already started to do.  Within a very short time, your opinions will be as relevant as the dead language you pin your arguments to.

Latin is not dead

it a language understood by intellectuals

1 hour ago, newnative said:

So, in other words, no proof.

Didn't say that. There;s probably lots of proof and lots of papers, but frankly I don't care enough to look just so you can be more educated.

 

I guess you could ask Elton John and her husband, that might work.

3 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

Latin is not dead

it a language understood by intellectuals

Nope, it is a language which is studied by a small percentage of people and they are not all intellectuals. 

Many intellectuals haven't studied Latin.

38 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The origin of marriage comes from the Latin word maritaticum. The definition of that word is the union of a man and a woman. Which is derived from the word maritatus (masculine ) and martata  (feminine ) or male and female.  The original intention of marriage was to give ownership of the woman to a man. 

Why the queer (you all said you prefer to be refered to as queer now ).community would even contemplate marriage is beyond me. It is impossible for male, male, female, female to be married. 

A civil union, is a legal partnership between 2 people. Perfectly surfice in my knowledgeable opinion. 

You're something else.

First of all, I don't use the word Queer. I explained why some people do. I think it is really NOT OK for someone so obviously hostile to gay people, who has posted for years various toxic myths about gay such as that they are a danger to children and were mostly molested themselves, that is against equal civil rights for gay people to use the word Queer. From the likes of you, there is no doubt, it is a SLUR. You get that, right? 

 

Marriage is a different thing in each country. Typically there is a religious aspect to marriage AND also a civic aspect to marriage. In some countries they are totally merged. In others, definitely not.

 

Of course for example now in the U.S. two atheists now of the same or opposite sex can go to their local city hall and become legally married. Of course it wasn't always that way for the same sex part but as far as I know it has been for the city hall part. In other words, no need to get a clergyman involved, that being an OPTION. 

 

Same sex marriage is now fully legal in numerous nations in regions all over the world, but some regions are backwards, such as Africa and Asia. 

 

For you to say it is IMPOSSIBLE for people of the same sex to get married is beyond moronic. Why would you bother broadcasting such false idiocies? If you want to say you oppose it, fine and dandy, but impossible, no, that is ridiculous. It's happening every day! 

Edited April 30, 20188 yr by Jingthing

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

but some regions are backwards, such as Africa and Asia. 

why do you say they are backward?

thought you were against prejudice

17 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

Latin is not dead

 

Really!? Where are its native speakers located?

 

17 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

it a language understood by intellectuals

 

You could say the same about Celtic or Macedonian or Gothic.  That it is "understood" does not mean it isn't extinct.