Gay couple asked to reverse "marriage is so gay" shirt at Dollywood

CoasterDemon said:

Smoke329 said:
using the term FAMILY FRIENDLY as well, I had know idea that was offensive to the gay community until today.

I'm 100% gay and don't find that term offensive.

We are not one huge person, or a bunch will all the same thoughts.

Exactly. Just as not all of the people who would have used the term "not family friendly" in this situation would have intended it as an insult to this family.

I will also admit that I would have had no idea this phrasing could have been interpreted as a slight or offense to this couple. It's normally a quite benign phrase, albeit terribly overused as a euphemism for the term offensive. In the context it was offered, it would not have been on my radar that misinterpretation would occur, let alone be assumed that malice was the intent.

I'm really bothered that some are unwilling to consider that no malicious intent was involved. Situations that don't involve malice are the best for true education, in my opinion.

I don't think you need malicious intent to be offended. I mean, my grandmother referred to black people as "coloreds," but she wasn't trying to be racist. Doesn't it make it any less offensive, and I don't expect that someone would spend a lot of time analyzing intent.

Jeff said:
, and I don't expect that someone would spend a lot of time analyzing intent.

Except Coaster enthusiasts...

Or maybe it does.

If it hurts, you are doing something wrong. Unless that's your thing, of course.

Brian Noble said:

Or maybe it does.

If it hurts, you are doing something wrong. Unless that's your thing, of course.

Gonch - Beat me and make me feel cheap! :-)

Everyone wants a piece of Gonch. ;)

I don't think you need malicious intent to be offended, but I think you should make sure it existed before you turn to the media in an effort to get a phrase removed from standard usage.

If the receiver of the message is unwilling to try to understand what was really being communicated, then why would the sender be willing to try to understand how the message might have been received? Communication is a two-way street...always.

English is a terribly ambiguous language. If you take actual intent out of the equation, everyone should be afraid to speak to anyone for fear of offense because so many things can be taken completely out of context.

Is that kind of like the difference between "Let's Eat, Grandma - and Let's Eat Grandma"? :-)

Interestingly (or maybe not), I think intent is the only thing that does matter.

Words are harmless without intent.

That's why so many people lovingly call me an asshole...

...

...

Hey, wait!

:)

I think too many people spend too much time looking for ways to be offended. I blame reality tv for at least some of that. If there isn't drama in your life, make some up.

We need to stop being PC and grow some thick skin. This couple was asked to turn the shirt backwards and they refused. The fact is that once you buy your ticket then you are to obey thier dress code. IF not then don't go. The same can be said for every privately run business.

She did reverse her shirt. She said she didn't want to make a scene in front of her family with fighting it. And they were then allowed to enter the park and enjoy their day.

Gonch - I'd never call you that. You always seem like a nice upstanding young man <cough> <cough>.

Majorcut said:
We need to stop being PC and grow some thick skin. This couple was asked to turn the shirt backwards and they refused.

You should read the article, because that isn't what happened.

I'm surprised that anyone can just brush it aside. If I were her, I would see many states and politicians declare that I couldn't get married to the person I love the most, and worse, what I define as family is verbally invalidated by some schmuck at a turnstile. She's not a robot. I'd be pissed too. That cuts pretty deep, and there comes a point where you're gonna get all Rosa Parks and declare that you're tired of it. That she acted with as much restraint as she did at the time is surprising.

Is your take that the unfamily friendliness was the use of the phrase "so gay" or the support of gay marriage? Or somewhere in between?

GoBucks89 said:
I think too many people spend too much time looking for ways to be offended. I blame reality tv for at least some of that. If there isn't drama in your life, make some up.

Or maybe there are just more offensive things and people.

Jeff said:
I'm surprised that anyone can just brush it aside. If I were her, I would see many states and politicians declare that I couldn't get married to the person I love the most, and worse, what I define as family is verbally invalidated by some schmuck at a turnstile. She's not a robot. I'd be pissed too. That cuts pretty deep, and there comes a point where you're gonna get all Rosa Parks and declare that you're tired of it. That she acted with as much restraint as she did at the time is surprising.

Thats the kind of overdramatized garbage I was talking about. Verbally invalidated?? By someone at a turnstile? Nothing anyone working at a turnstile could ever say could ever invalidate anything in my life much less anything that is truly important to me. And comparing what happend to Rosa Parks?

Or maybe there are just more offensive things and people.

Never in the history of the planet has a society had it better or easier than folks in the US. Yet never in the history of the planet has a higher number of folks found some basis to be offended. I think its the very fact that we have it so well and so easy makes it possible for us to find time to be offended.

"Gay" can be ojective, or perjorative. I think most of us are savvy enough to be able to judge based on speaker or tone whether the usage has "flat affect" or emotional content, and to distinguish the subtle meaning (reading between the lines, for you older folks).

"So gay" has no such filtering needed...it's intended to show negative connotation. Now, much like "the N word", people who consider themselves family may on occasion use the word or phrase in such a way as to indicate shades of meaning that may be unclear to those outside of the selected social group. This does NOT give "the rest of us" license to use those expressions...

Just thought it was time to clarify jargon and usage...since we were treading so close to the proverbial line... ;)

GoBucks89 said: I think its the very fact that we have it so well and so easy makes it possible for us to find time to be offended.

Perhaps it's the fact that we have it so well that causes us to ignore what impact we might have on anyone else.

Jeff said:
and worse, what I define as family is verbally invalidated by some schmuck at a turnstile. She's not a robot. I'd be pissed too.

And if I thought that was what actually happened, I'd be pissed, too. I just don't think that's the case.

I think the shirt was misunderstood by the employee (or it was a concern that it would be misunderstood by other guests at the park) and the overused euphemism of family-friendly/family park was used as the reason for violating the dress code.

I just don't see how they were invalidated as a family simply because of the enforcement of their dress code policy...particularly when the shirt in question was meant to be an ironic use of a negative and often derogatory phrase.

I don't know if anyone else saw this, but this an article from the 2004 Gay Day gathering at Dollywood. The last few sentences are important:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18381

"The gathering at Dollywood sparked little trouble at the park. One of the lesbian participants was asked to turn her shirt inside out before coming into the park due to its offensive nature, while a man wearing an anti-homosexual statement was asked to change before entering the park. A Dollywood spokesman said the park, according to its mission statement, is operated in a manner consistent with Christian values and ethics."

So this recent issue is not an isolated incident, and appears to have been consistently enforced from both sides of the table. However, again the issue that is really making a mess of things is Dollywood's "official" explanation on why the shirts have to be turned inside out.