Christian News Site Turns Athlete Homosexual

That's pretty funny I don't really understand why the Christian News Site prefers the term homosexual to the term gay. Gay was amazing. He didn't win theworld record, but still ran the fastest 100m ever.

posted by bperk at 09:31 AM - reply - flag:

They don't prefer it, the feeling is that "gay" is too nice a word. Because, as you know, being gay is an abomination against God. And the standard response to abominations is a regular expression that alters text.

posted by yerfatma at 10:13 AM - reply - flag:

That's about the homosexualest thing I've ever seen.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:44 AM - reply - flag:

I'm not a big homosexual guy.

posted by aupa_athletic at 10:54 AM - reply - flag:

I was laughing out loud with gaiety, er homosexuality, upon reading this.

posted by Howard_T at 10:56 AM - reply - flag:

That's pretty funny I don't really understand why the Christian News Site prefers the term homosexual to the term gay. The first time I read this, I thought it said: ...why the Christian News Site prefers the team homosexual to the team gay. And I didn't have an answer for that at all. I was trying to figure out which sport we were talking about. Thanks for the links, rcade.

posted by BoKnows at 11:20 AM - reply - flag:

Let's all be happy and homosexual!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:52 AM - reply - flag:

Personally? I'd like a auto-replace funtion that replaces American Family Association with bigoted assholes.

posted by cjets at 11:53 AM - reply - flag:

The plane that dropped the first atom bomb, called "Little Boy", was the Enola Homosexual. Now You Know.

posted by worldcup2002 at 11:56 AM - reply - flag:

Thanks for the link rcade. Very amusing.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:14 PM - reply - flag:

Personally? I'd like a auto-replace funtion that replaces American Family Association with bigoted assholes. Bigoted....maybe. And assholes? Really? Why cjets? They have just put their thesaurus to use. They have not changed any meaning or added any connontation that did not previously exist. Gay = Homosexual? Yes? Well actually.....they have totally changed some peoples' last names, but that is besides the point since I don't believe that is what you were referring to.

posted by Miles1996 at 12:41 PM - reply - flag:

Bigoted....maybe. And assholes? Really? Why cjets? They have just put their thesaurus to use. They have not changed any meaning or added any connontation that did not previously exist. So why did they make the change, Miles? In my opinion, it was to denigrate people who are gay. According to Wikipedia, until 2007 AFA wanted to criminalize homosexuality. And Bigots who denigrate others are assholes. Bonus points for hiding behind Christianity as a reason for their narrow minded bigotry. So, Miles, why aren't they assholes?

posted by cjets at 12:56 PM - reply - flag:

That's homosexual.

posted by BornIcon at 01:36 PM - reply - flag:

Whether one is Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian, how you live your life is proof that you are or not fully His. We cannot condemn or judge or pass words that will hurt people. We don't know in what way God is appearing to that soul and what God is drawing that soul to; therefor, who are we to condemn anybody? Mother Teresa (1910 - 1997) So petty of people that aledge that they are Christain...actions speak so much loader than words. Gay...Homosexual...who cares...Take the high road!

posted by 2dhoop at 02:15 PM - reply - flag:

Gay = Homosexual Gay=Happy as well. I can be happy but not homosexual. I can be happy and homosexual too but that is a whole different matter.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:00 PM - reply - flag:

I have to say, even if I subscribed to the AFA's homophobic views, I still think I'd find their editing news stories on the fly distasteful, and more than a little creepy. Talk about Big Brother. I wonder what the AP thinks of this editing? Blocking a site is one thing, modifying content...not even a little bit ethical.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:04 PM - reply - flag:

Let's all be happy and homosexual! No thanks. What is this, the 80's or something?

posted by docshredder at 03:22 PM - reply - flag:

I wouldn't touch this topic with a ten foot pole. Too much of a slippery-slope.

posted by THX-1138 at 03:32 PM - reply - flag:

I think I just found a reason to love overbearing Christian censorship.

posted by freeze_over98 at 04:56 PM - reply - flag:

So, Miles, why aren't they assholes? Depends on why you are calling them assholes. You argue that they are assholes because you believe that they are trying to denigrate others. The argument you make is based on your interpretation of the intent of their actions. However, if I read between the lines, I get the feeling that you think that they are assholes because of their beliefs. So why aren't they assholes? First of all, I don't think you can call someone an asshole because of what they believe. Misguided perhaps, but I think asshole is a bit strong. I think the term asshole pertains to someone whose actions are contemptible (possibly due to some misguided beliefs). So the question remains: were they trying to denigrate and belittle gays? If so, I would agree that they were being mean which would qualify them for the status of "asshole". However, when I consider that this story comes from a conservative Christian website whose audience is likeminded, I don't see how that is an attempt to be mean. They are not forcing it on anyone nor are they getting in anyone's face with this. My guess at their intent is that they do not want to allow the issue of homosexuality to become mainstream or acceptable in their circle, so they insist on calling it by what it is instead of by a more redeeming word. If they were truly trying to denigrate anyone, there are certainly many slurs available for their use. On preview: cjets, my comment is based on this posting. I am not defending AFA in their entirety. My point is that I don't think that this story qualifies them as assholes. And.this may simply be a difference of opinion on their intent. Then again it may be a difference of opinion on what qualifies someone as an asshole.

posted by Miles1996 at 02:16 AM - reply - flag:

Maybe its trying to be politically correct by saying homosexual instead of gay. (poorly doing so)

posted by Jackjeckyl at 02:53 AM - reply - flag:

I can be happy and homosexual too but that is a whole different matter. Wait...you're gay?

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:14 AM - reply - flag:

First of all, I don't think you can call someone an asshole because of what they believe. Sure you can. Certain self-proclaimed Christians call people of other faiths worse than that all the time.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:16 AM - reply - flag:

I think the posistion of the AFA is ridiculous, if for no other reason, the complete focus on the WORD Gay... It's not like they are even addressing the "act" of being gay or homosexual or... whatever but rather the word. I do kind of agree with Miles in that it's a little "strong" to call someone as asshole based on their beliefs BUT I would say that these actions do warrant it. I mean let's say I was a racist and I didn't like white people, should I then boycott white milk, or if I don't like blacks? There goes chocolate... well everything! Or how about an extreme feminist? No more Mail for me! I think this is just plain crazy. Ok AFA you don't support homosexuality. DON'T DO IT! JUST SAY NO! But to actually change a mans name because it just happens to be a word you don't like??? Did learn NOTHING from Gaylord "Greg" Focker??? What's in a word people?

posted by emancipated107 at 07:46 AM - reply - flag:

Wait...you're gay? No

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:19 AM - reply - flag:

First of all, I don't think you can call someone an asshole because of what they believe. Fine. I won't call them "assholes". I'll just call them "harmful bigots with an outdated agenda". Is that better?

posted by Ufez Jones at 08:37 AM - reply - flag:

But to actually change a mans name because it just happens to be a word you don't like??? Um, this was an (amusing) unforeseen side-effect of an auto-replace tool. They were not actually trying to change their names.

posted by bender at 08:37 AM - reply - flag:

Yeah... Bender I got that... But here's a crazy idea, why not turn off your "auto-replace tool" say long enough to get the names right? Maybe I'm giving them too much credit to think that they would actually edit what they're putting in their material? OneNewsNow, an online news service owned by the American Family Association, has been editing AP stories to automatically replace the word "gay" with "homosexual," filing numerous stories Nope they're editing...

posted by emancipated107 at 09:20 AM - reply - flag:

Wait...you're gay? No Not that there's anything wrong with that.

posted by tommytrump at 10:07 AM - reply - flag:

Um, this was an (amusing) unforeseen side-effect of an auto-replace tool. They were not actually trying to change their names. But they were modifying content that they do not own on the fly. They were knowingly and deliberately changing words in articles and still flying them under the AP banner. That's the part that still has me dumbstruck. The thinly veiled homophobia is no surprise, but to think that it's okay to modify an article like this...am I really the only person who finds that appalling?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:55 AM - reply - flag:

Wait...you're gay? You mean happy? Because I'm happy as a clam. Uh, oh. Do you think I could get auto-edited for that?

posted by THX-1138 at 11:19 AM - reply - flag:

That's the part that still has me dumbstruck. The thinly veiled homophobia is no surprise, but to think that it's okay to modify an article like this...am I really the only person who finds that appalling? Don't get me wrong, I think that changing "gay" to "homosexual" is bizarre and ridiculous. I was merely clarifying that their reason for doing that had nothing to do with the athletes who it humorously affected. You're absolutely right, changing other people's work and reprinting it is not cool.

posted by bender at 11:58 AM - reply - flag:

...am I really the only person who finds that appalling? No you are not. That alone should warrant the asshole comment.

posted by BoKnows at 12:00 PM - reply - flag:

You mean happy? Because I'm happy as a clam. Uh, oh. Do you think I could get auto-edited for that? I would have it edited to say, "I am as happy as a bivalve mollusk." But then again I'm an asshole.

posted by tselson at 12:05 PM - reply - flag:

Reminds me of the Yankee desktop calendar screw up a couple years ago.

posted by goddam at 12:23 PM - reply - flag:

First of all, I don't think you can call someone an asshole because of what they believe. Really? How about the Nazis, the KKK or Al Quaeda. To me, they would all qualify as assholes for their beliefs alone (and their actions too, of course), as would any garden variety racist. So the question remains: were they trying to denigrate and belittle gays? This was an organization that, until last year, was spearheading a legal effort to criminalize homosexuality. I think that makes it very clear what their intent was and is in regards to homosexuality. You argue that they are assholes because you believe that they are trying to denigrate others. The argument you make is based on your interpretation of the intent of their actions. However, if I read between the lines, I get the feeling that you think that they are assholes because of their beliefs. Of course I think they're assholes because of their beliefs, but it's their belief that homosexuality is wrong and even criminal that I find assholish, not their religion. If a non-religious right wing group were doing this, I'd have the same reaction.

posted by cjets at 12:36 PM - reply - flag:

Reminds me of the Yankee desktop calendar screw up a couple years ago. That's funny. I'd like to get one of those African-American armbands.

posted by bperk at 12:53 PM - reply - flag:

"You argue that they are assholes because you believe that they are trying to denigrate others. The argument you make is based on your interpretation of the intent of their actions. However, if I read between the lines, I get the feeling that you think that they are assholes because of their beliefs." Their actions are a direct result of their beliefs.......if the shoe fits.... Opinions are like assholes....everyone has one ...and most of them stink! If it looks like an asshole...smells like an asshole....acts like an asshole there is a very good chance that it is an asshole!

posted by 2dhoop at 10:31 AM - reply - flag:

....everyone has one ...and most of them stink! That's, like, your opinion, man!

posted by steelergirl at 11:14 AM - reply - flag:

"....everyone has one ...and most of them stink! That's, like, your opinion, man!" posted by steelergirl at 11:14 AM CDT on July 3 Maybe you just know more of them than I do!

posted by 2dhoop at 11:34 AM - reply - flag:

They were not actually trying to change their names. But they still did so even if it was unintentional.

posted by BornIcon at 12:12 PM - reply - flag:

I kid, 2dhoop. Actually I agree with you. And changing the names is stupid. The AFA is over the line on this one. I'm gonna go smoke a fag.

posted by steelergirl at 05:04 PM - reply - flag:

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Comments