The Washington Post published a pro-gay editorial today about marriage. And that’s great. But they called us “homosexuals” throughout the piece, and that’s not great. It’s degrading and offensive and archaic.

I’ve written about this before, and some have disagreed. But I’d argue that those who disagree don’t understand the nuance of language or of this particular phrase. Ask any gay person, regardless of whether they agree or disagree that the word “homosexual” is archaic and offensive, whether they use the term “gay” or “homosexual” to described themselves. I.e., “I’m gay” or “I’m a homosexual.” Just ask them. Unless they’re living under a rock, gay people rarely if ever use the word homosexual. (My gay-friendly straight friends, however, use the term all the time. In the same way that I still hear friends use the word “oriental.”)

Why? First, because it’s become archaic. Usage changes, and just as Negro and colored changed to black and African-American, just as oriental gave way to Asian, homosexual has become gay. But second, and more importantly, the word homosexual is offensive in the same manner as negro and oriental. Sometimes archaic words sting. In the case of homosexual, I think the main problem is three-fold. First, the clinical nature of the term. It’s a scientific word that mildly dehumanizes gay people by suggesting that they have a medical or psychological condition. Second, the words “homo” and “sex.” Both words connote something negative, or at least something that shouldn’t be spoken out loud, to a lot of Americans. Third, and most importantly, homosexual is the word the religious right uses expressly and uniquely in an effort to dehumanize gays. Anti-gay religious right activists have said publicly that they will not use the word “gay” - rather, they insist on using “homosexual.” Why? Because for some reason or another they figure that the word homosexual helps their cause. And while I don’t agree with the religious right on many things, their ability to gay-bash swiftly and effectively is unqestioned. If they think the word gay helps us and the word homosexual hurts us, who am I to argue?

Second, the words “homo” and “sex.” Both words connote something negative, or at least something that shouldn't be spoken out loud, to a lot of Americans.

Didn't we already had this debate on another place, including the proper use of "faggot" in a political discussion?

We did. I think it's lurking in the archives somewhere. If I come upon it, I'll put a link here.

This issue has broader implications for communications and marketing to our community and points up one of the cardinal sins we often counsel clients on: what to call us.

While it may seem to some marketers that simply acknowledging our existence is enough, how you acknowledge us is at least as important as the fact that you do it. More credibility has been lost than gained by companies that awkwardly reach out to our community with nomenclature, imagery and/or language that betrays their lack of knowledge of who we are. In some cases, this awkwardness probably masks a certain amount of discomfort as well. In all cases, it's important for marketers to understand that there is both an art and science to outreach to our community. The art is capturing our interest in ways that demonstrate you understand our lives and the things that motivate us. The science is using language that demonstrates you value us as people, not just the "other" that you may grudgingly realize you need to reach out to for business reasons.

And that brings us back to "gay" vs. "homosexual." This issue is really just a natural extension of the "f-word" debate that broke out into the open earlier this year with the "Grey's Anatomy" spectacle that we've written about extensively already. There are few hard and fast rules, but there is this: exercise common sense in engaging our community and use terms that both you and your target audience feel are appropriate. If it sounds wrong, it probably is. Asking for professional guidance to figure this out is the best way to know if you've hit - or missed - the mark.

Does it make me look louche if I call him first?

Out of political necessity we have banded together and out of social and political ignorance and expediency we've been lumped together. We've been forced to make common cause against common enemies, but we're far from monolithic and, truth be told, often times adversarial to one another.

The men are most often caught "cruising" for sex in public parks and restrooms. Most are between 36 and 56, and a third of them are married and consider themselves straight, according to statistics kept by Salt Lake City.

[..]

A considerable number of the men [..] fit Craig's profile, said therapist Jerry Buie.
"A lot of them are very conservative, very rigid against issues that are gay," Buie said.
Craig has held top Republican positions and has voted against gay rights, including several votes for a federal ban on gay marriage.
"These guys become experts at compartmentalizing their lives," Buie said. " 'What I do at the park does not have any relevance to what I do politically, morally, religiously' " is a common refrain.

I simply MUST add that I find it bizarre in the extreme that Salt Lake City should keep statistics on this matter. They count them.... really?

Whatever for?