This thread is so gay

[viscomica]

The same happens in Spanish and most of the languages that come from latin.

Spanish does have the advantage though that the masculine or feminine marker are both added. For instance, most of the time, A for female and O for male. So you have root+o or root+a. That makes it possible to construct a neutral form, which as I understand, is using E instead. So just like "grande" can be masculine or feminine, some people use "pequeñe" instead of "pequeño" or "pequeña".
As far as I know, it's not used much more than the gender-neutral singular pronouns are in English, but it exist.

Yes, but I believe that hasn't been accepted by the RAE. "Grande" works because it's one of the few adjectives in Spanish that are, in fact, neutral and can be used for both genres. Whereas "pequeñe" is a made up word and as such, it shouldn't even exist.

[AdmiralMemo]

So... This is my first foray in this thread, so I apologize if I step on any toes inadvertently, since I haven't read what's come before.

For background, I'm a heterosexual and somewhat asexual male. (If heterosexuality to homosexuality is plotted on one axis, while asexuality to hypersexuality is plotted on another, I'd be pretty much pegged to heterosexual on the first axis, while being somewhere down in the 10% to 20% range on the asexuality axis. Essentially, all of my urges have been of a heterosexual nature, but they have never been strong, nor have they overridden other urges I've had, like being social, getting intellectual stimulation, etc.)

Anyway, my situation is this: Over the years, I've had numerous gay/bi male friends/acquaintances tell me that I'm attractive to them. (One of my friends to the point where he said that he wished I was gay and lived in his state so he could date me.) I've never felt comfortable being the object of affection in this "incompatible orientation" situation. However, I've always just taken it as an awkward compliment and left it at that, since it would never work out.

This, in itself is not an issue. By itself, I can deal with this awkward affection.
However, I have to combine it with the fact that I've never had any women (of any orientation) tell me that I'm attractive. (This includes my ex-girlfriend, but even if she had, I'd discount her opinion somewhat since she went borderline-insane.)

So, at the risk of possibly sounding stupid to some people, is it possible I've been inadvertently sending off "gay vibes" or "the wrong signals" to people? Or is it simply weird coincidence?

[Metcarfre]

Sounds like maybe you just have a better/easier time making good friends with men than women, gay or straight, which would make them more comfortable either joking around or sharing that.

Additionally, it can be an unfortunate truth in our society that gay men are socialized to embrace that sort of behavior, whereas women are discouraged from doing so.

I spend a lot of time arguing with idiots about whether or not a certain clothing item or method of dress is "gay". People have no idea, and it's truly remarkable what they think correlates with homosexuality.

[Avistew]

The same happens in Spanish and most of the languages that come from latin.

Spanish does have the advantage though that the masculine or feminine marker are both added. For instance, most of the time, A for female and O for male. So you have root+o or root+a. That makes it possible to construct a neutral form, which as I understand, is using E instead. So just like "grande" can be masculine or feminine, some people use "pequeñe" instead of "pequeño" or "pequeña".
As far as I know, it's not used much more than the gender-neutral singular pronouns are in English, but it exist.

Yes, but I believe that hasn't been accepted by the RAE. "Grande" works because it's one of the few adjectives in Spanish that are, in fact, neutral and can be used for both genres. Whereas "pequeñe" is a made up word and as such, it shouldn't even exist.

I don't know what the RAE is. As for it not being a "real word" well it's the same as the new gender pronouns in English. The point is that it's possible to say "pequeñe" if one chooses to. If you can find me a French equivalent I'd be happy to use it.

Also, all words are invented at some point. Some are just newer than user, or less used than others. Both problems can be solved by actually using the words. At some point, they enter common usage. If we just dismissed any word that is new, none of our languages would have ever evolved to what they are today.

[Master Gunner]

I'm guessing RAE refers to the "Real Academia Española", essentially the Spanish equivalent to "L'Académie française".

[viscomica]

I don't know what the RAE is. As for it not being a "real word" well it's the same as the new gender pronouns in English. The point is that it's possible to say "pequeñe" if one chooses to. If you can find me a French equivalent I'd be happy to use it.

Also, all words are invented at some point. Some are just newer than user, or less used than others. Both problems can be solved by actually using the words. At some point, they enter common usage. If we just dismissed any word that is new, none of our languages would have ever evolved to what they are today.

RAE is "la Real Academia Española"
Also, no, not every made up word is or should be used. For a word to be accepted a long period of usage has to pass before it is incorporated in the dictionary and in the common language of everyone. Made up words like "pequeñe" are not even spread throughout every spanish speaking country. In fact, before you mentioned it I have never even heard of it before.

[Duckay]

Yes, but Avistew didn't say that all made-up words should be used... She said that all words were, at some point or another, made up, which is a very different point.

As for your other point, no, it obviously presently does not have widespread usage, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't. The only way to get there is to encourage the usage.

[viscomica]

Yes, but Avistew didn't say that all made-up words should be used... She said that all words were, at some point or another, made up, which is a very different point.

As for your other point, no, it obviously presently does not have widespread usage, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't. The only way to get there is to encourage the usage.

I don't think the usage of "pequeñe" should be encouraged. It doesn't make much sense in Spanish to use a word like that. In my own opinion, of course.

[Avistew]

I think that a lot of people who are agender or genderfluid would appreciate being able to be called small without being wrongly called male or female. And I only gave this adjective as an example. This idea of using "e" instead of "o" or "a" could apply to a lot of adjectives, as well as nouns, etc. For people who don't have a binary gender, being able to have works that fit can make a difference. That's the whole reason people have been creating gender-neutral pronouns for years, trying to find something that would be simple enough to enter common use.
It hasn't been very successful, but most of those are, in my opinion, more of a stretch than a final E.

[viscomica]

I think if those modifications are really necessary in time they will be accepted. I just don't see it happening any time soon, and phonetically speaking "pequeñe" sounds awful.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

The issue is that French and Spanish have a far more rigid approach to language than English. Since the days of Shakespeare, English has been a rapidly evolving language that is entirely organic in its progression and growth; the romance languages, by contrast, generally get designed via committee. The RAE is one such example. This is a gross oversimplification, but highlights some of the issues these languages in particular have when it comes to correcting language.

Also, agreed- pequeñe sounds awful.

[Avistew]

I personally don't think it sounds any worse than "grande" or "pequeño". I suspect, as often with language, it's a matter of what you're used to.

[viscomica]

Then there'd be lots of arrangements romance languages have because of phonetics that wouldn't exist. Some things are pronounced or not pronounced a certain way that would be otherwise logical in favor of "sounding pretty". It happens a lot. In that regard, "pequeñe" just doesn't sound well in Spanish. Of course, an expert in phonetics would be most suitable for saying that, but personally, I just can't see it working out. Sorry

[Timelady]

Wow, the posts I just happen to click on my bimonthly peruse of the forum lately.

Avistew--I just wanted to say I get you completely on the gender thing. I've often felt like I'm something other than entirely female (probably some form of genderfluid), but that exploring that in depth and figuring out how to actually define it has been...yeah, laziness is a good word. Very low on my list of priorities, shall we say.

[Psyclone]

Hey all, I'm sort of having a reverse sexuality crisis and I want to talk to someone within the queer community about it.

[JustAName]

What's up? You have my e-mail?

[CiderMuffin]

I had this discussion with a friend about the stance on homosexuality in the bible, according to her the bible never actually condemns homosexuality but it just states "sex for pleasure is wrong" which might have lead people to think that "Well, homosexuality is a perverse thing and you can't reproduce with another man!" (I'm not stating homosexuality is a perverse thing, it's just a common misconception among people who don't actually understand homosexuality"

Though I could be wrong, I haven't read the bible.

[AdmiralMemo]

If anyone claims that the Bible says that sex for pleasure is wrong, they have never read the Song of Solomon.

Leviticus does outright condemn male homosexual actions (though not necessarily desires), and Paul's epistles lump homosexuals in with "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, swindlers, the lawless and rebellious, the ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers and immoral men, kidnappers, liars and perjurers."

Make of that what you will.

[Bebop Man]

The Bible is routinely re-written to accomodate its primitive message in a progressive world. But if there's one thing that has never been changed is its condemnation of homosexuality. Corinthians leaves very little room for interpretation.

[Master Gunner]

Leviticus does outright condemn male homosexual actions (though not necessarily desires)

For comparison, other things banned by Leviticus:

*Letting your hair become unkempt
*Tearing your clothes
*Drinking alcohol in holy places (*cough*Communion*cough*)
*Bacon
*Shrimp Cocktails
*Going to church 1-2 months after giving birth (*cough*Baptisms*cough*)
*Holding back the wages of an employee overnight
*Mixing fabrics in clothing
*Sleeping with another man’s slave (owning a slave though - completely OK)
*Trimming your beard (*Looks at Mr. Saunders*)
*Getting tattoos

->This list is meant largely in jest, and explicitly rendered moot in Christian tradition.
(Source)

[AdmiralMemo]

Yep. This is why I said "Make of that what you will."

*Drinking alcohol in holy places (*cough*Communion*cough*)

Most churches I've gone to use grape juice, since what we translate into English as "wine" is a term that is very broad in ancient Greek and covers both alcoholic wine and non-alcoholic grape juice.

*Going to church 1-2 months after giving birth (*cough*Baptisms*cough*)

I don't even understand what you're getting at here?

Or is this a thing regarding infant baptism, which, in itself, is heavily debated?

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

Also, you shouldn't eat shellfish.
You shouldn't eat dairy and meat if the two get contaminated.

What's funny CiderMuffin, was that I made a post very similar to what you said earlier this evening. Then deleted it because I was thinking it might not appropriate.
Did you see it?
Or is your post independent?

If the latter, spooky.
-
I am a Christian and as a result I need to believe that 100% of what's written in my Bible is true.
True as in, factual or an abstract expression. (I don't believe the universe was made in 7 Earth days. But perhaps "Days" are a way to express a unit of time. Technically it was made in an instant, if there wasn't a pre Universe).
But yeah, this includes any controversial lines.

I can cherry pick lines and dismiss things that I disagree with (probably added through corrupted humans pushing a personal agenda). But if I'm doing that, what's the point of it all? So, I'm choosing I hope the more mature route. Trying to justify the words I don't want to exist.

I am trying to work this out because really don't like people using quotes from the Bible to push their opinions that hurt other people. It's not fair. It's not fair to drag faith into politics, because there is no room for negotiation unless you're able to discuss quotation itself and the context.

The Bible was written not now. Some things might be the same. Some things are not the same. It's a mess. I'm going to find an answer.

I personally believe that God/The Lord/Senyor is a loving being. Why would a Loving God want two people be unhappy. Why would a Loving God be against two people who happen to be of the same gender to be in a loving and genuine relationship and/or marriage? This is my opinion. I now need to find some context and Biblical verses to support it -.-

[AdmiralMemo]

Also, you shouldn't eat shellfish.

One thing that gets me is that I wonder why people eat shellfish commonly, but not something like a scorpion, which, if you think about it, is really something akin to a land version of a crayfish. (This is coming from a person who eats crabs frequently and has come into a recent love of lobster. Also, I know some people do eat scorpions, but I'm just curious why it's not common.)

Also, regarding the interpretation of the Bible, there are at least 3 things you have to define and take into account:

Biblical inerrancy
Biblical infallibility
Biblical literalism

Though there is overlap, these are 3 separate concepts, and there is much debate about all three of them, and you don't have to believe in all three.

The Bible was written not now. Some things might be the same. Some things are not the same. It's a mess. I'm going to find an answer.

I went to a Christian middle/high school, and one of my Bible teachers had a rule that he drilled into us: "A text out of context can be a pretext for anything you want it to be."
I've used that as something I've based part of my life on, not just in the Bible, but in other things as well.

I personally believe that God/The Lord/Senyor is a loving being. Why would a Loving God want two people be unhappy. Why would a Loving God be against two people who happen to be of the same gender to be in a loving and genuine relationship and/or marriage? This is my opinion. I now need to find some context and Biblical verses to support it -.-

Part of this is what I believe is a corruption of the Bible. The modern "prosperity Gospel" states that God wants you to be happy and He wants to give you what you need to be happy.
I believe that is false, and God, while maybe concerned about your happiness on some level, is more interested in your faith, in purity, and other higher concepts like that. Also, you must remember that love =/= happiness. Ask any married couple, or parent/child, or anyone in any type of loving relationship, etc. Were they always happy with each other? No, of course not. Did they always love each other. Absolutely. Extrapolate that out to our relationship with God, and you can see conflicts emerge between a loving God and a fallible humanity, despite over-arching love.

If you're going in trying to find a "God wants you to be happy with [X]" verse, you will likely not find it.

And, getting off-topic, but to make a brief mention:

(I don't believe the universe was made in 7 Earth days. But perhaps "Days" are a way to express a unit of time. Technically it was made in an instant, if there wasn't a pre Universe).

You might be interested in this theology, which I've been studying lately. It's very intriguing, and I'm still grappling with what I think about it.

[Master Gunner]

*Going to church 1-2 months after giving birth (*cough*Baptisms*cough*)

I don't even understand what you're getting at here?

Children are generally baptized within a few days or weeks of giving birth (it used to be a rather immediate priority due to high infant death rates, less so now), which typically requires the presence of the mother in a church.

[Elomin Sha]

The Bible was written not now. Some things might be the same. Some things are not the same. It's a mess. I'm going to find an answer.

Did you know: the canon version of the Bible used today came about because someone else started to bring some of the books together, and the church was worried about it. Link

There's also the story, by Gnostic text, that God is actually the devil created by a Goddess called Sophia. It's an interesting mythology.