Ernya.com

Winkpolve wrote:"Gay" as an adjective means happy. It's in the dictionary, and no, it's not an old term, it's still used in English language, not being outdated. Many words are outdated and are still in the dictionary.
"Gay" as a noun means "homosexual male". When people usually say: "Are you gay?" they ask "are you happy?". Because nouns in the english language comes with an article: 'a' or 'an'.
When you want to know the sexual orientation of one, you should ask "Are you a gay"; because, since it's a noun, it comes with an article. Do you ask someone: "Are you person?"; "Is he immigrant?"; "Is spanish language?", probably not... Since they are nouns, like "gay" meaning homosexual male. Don't confuse things.
Sometimes I feel embarassed for native english speakers, because I'm 15, english is my third language and still, people of all ages commit these mistakes thinking that they're right.
Getting back to the adjective thing; even gays commit those mistakes, which is even worse, since they should know what they are. They come to people and say "I'm gay" when they refer to their sexuality, when actually they're saying. "I'm happy". Thus, they forget about the REAL meaning of their sexuality, which leads us to the phrase: "I'm a gay".

Well yeah. I do agree that those people who cant use it in its correct context are nothing but fools, but some people dont know that or are too lazy to say "stupid" or "bisexual". Perhaps they forget the right meaning and it slips out on accident. Its quite common, but annoying, I agree

Both of you seem to be overlooking the fact than languages evolve. Gay as an adjective is now both 'happy' and 'homosexual', though it's more commonly used to refer to the latter.

evercharmer wrote:Both of you seem to be overlooking the fact than languages evolve. Gay as an adjective is now both 'happy' and 'homosexual', though it's more commonly used to refer to the latter.

I agree.


From merriam-webster online:

1gay adj \ˈgā\
Definition of GAY

1
a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood>
b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>
2
a : bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>
b : brilliant in color
3
: given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4
a : homosexual <gay men>
b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>
— gay adverb
— gay·ness noun



It's perfectly acceptable to use the term gay as an adjective when speaking of someone who is homosexual.

I know what the word ACTUALLY means, it's just that if you say something like 'I am gay today', then you'd get odd looks from anyone but old folks that know what you mean.

Its like saying something is 'cool' or 'hot'. How is a photograph warm or cold?

I've said and still say "That's gay." I don't use it as a term for lame, I do use it with it's correct definition, though. I really dislike doing social things and things that make other people happy or "gay." So I say, "That's too gay for me."

This is not the debate I was expecting when I clicked on the thread title :) Anyway... Here's the bad news: English has a lot of exceptions to the rules. And not just because languages evolve (an argument you've clearly heard before).

One reason for what you've observed may be that the phrase itself might be considered an "idiom" - a phrase that means something different in whole than the sum of its parts. Idioms make up a huge class of exceptions to the rules.

Also, whether you like it or not, it is relevant to this argument that languages evolve. It is very uncommon to hear gay used to mean happy anywhere except in Christmas carols and Victorian and Edwardian literature. The relevant definitions today are really a)homosexual and b) [slang] bad, stupid, or in some way undesirable. But I realize that that alone does not disprove the argument that you're making because (a) is still a noun and (b) is still an adjective. I have to go one step further and point out that it's not just the definitions of words that change, it's also grammar that's evolving. Even if your example were not an idiom (and some would say that's no excuse for writing with improper grammar), the loss of the article may simply be a new grammatical form. For example, technically "they" and "them" are third person plural but they've been used as a genderless third person singular for awhile now and that has only begun to be formally recognized recently. But back to your example, no university professor will insert an article if you use that form in an academic article whether that's because they recognize it as an idiom or because they just accept it as an exception to the rules. The missing article in this case is considered correct.

Like a previous posted said, language evolves. Years ago "google" wasn't a verb, but now you hear people saying, "Just google it" all the time.

As far as using gay, I'm never one to really use 'gay' and 'lame' interchangeably. I just say it's stupid. If I think it's really 'gay' I'd probably say something along the lines of, "Well, isn't that glitter-shittingly homosexual?"