Gay, but not Homosexual

Today in his Breakpoint commentary for June 17th Chuck Colson rightly complains:

A recent New York Times article noted that people are "starting not to notice" when celebrities come out of the closet. The Times lamented that what was "once seen as a defiant and courageous act of such social and political significance" has "has lost some of its potency."

I wonder why? Could it be that, if your perception of the world is shaped by pop culture, you expect a lot of people to be gay? Could it be that after years of being told by elite media, like the Times, that being gay is "no big deal," people treat the news that someone is gay as "no big deal"?

Kent comments:

Here is a further thought on this matter.  Perhaps we need to begin to reclaim the culture on this matter by refusing to succumb to the manipulation of the English language.  Just because homosexuals (especially activists) like to call themselves ‘gay’ is no reason everyone else should.

The term ‘gay’ was clearly chosen here because of its original meaning, “having or showing a merry, lively mood.”  Apart from any moral evaluation, homosexual is homosexual.  Once you allow it to be termed ‘gay’ you have allowed proponents to cast it in a good light.

I do my level best never to call homosexuals or their sexual activity ‘gay’ because it most assuredly is not.  A good place to start in any effort to rescue our culture from homosexual activists/proponents is a steadfast refusal to allow them to co-op our language.

So let us be very clear:  I am often gay, but I am not homosexual.  Homosexuals might think they are gay, but given all the problems that almost always arise from this particular sin, they are not.