The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The derogatory term "gay" should be replaced with "obese"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 68194
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




How often do you hear someone say "that's so gay" about something they wish to insult? Many times a day, I'm sure.

This term of abuse represents an outrageous slur on gay men - male homosexuality is a disability just like any other - queers cannot help having defective genes that mutate their sexuality, so they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, just as if they were normal human beings.

Therefore, it is important to challenge the use of the word "gay" in a derogatory sense. Instead, people in authority should encourage the use of the phrase "that's so obese" to describe something unworthy instead. That's because, unlike male homosexuality, obesity is self-inflicted.

Thank you.


I believe, like you, that homosexuality is a genetic mutation. With that genetic mutation come certain characteristics that will come forward because of it, such as male femininity, changes in one's voice, etc. Certain people, myself included, may not like these particular characteristics. Therefore, if I saw a men's shirt with daisies on it, I could be prompted to say "that's so gay," because it resembles a quality that gay men often possess. If someone is even against gay people in general, it is within reason to use the phrase to describe something else that they do not desire. Challenging the use of the word "gay" in a derogatory sense really makes no sense, for it is not derogatory, it is simply a comparison.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Morganamonett for accepting this debate.

My opponent is correct that the phrase "that's so gay" is sometimes used quite legitimately to describe something effeminate, for example:

"Where's Elton John tonight?"

"He's gone to the theater with Ricky Martin to see the Billy Elliot stage musical."

"Oh, that's so gay."


"I'm going to order a 16oz rib-eye steak cooked rare and served with fries plus a large beer to wash them down with, what are you having George Michael out of the 80's pop group 'Wham'?"

"Can you order me the mushroom vol-au-vents plus fairy cakes served on a paper doily for desert, and I'll have a nice cup of chamomile tea to go with them. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm just going to follow that big hairy truck driver into the gents toilets."

"Oh, that's so gay. That's gayer than AIDS, that is. I mean that's gayer than a pink leather posing-pouch with studs on it and a big slit up the back. In fact, that's even gayer than an Abba tribute album by Justin Bieber."

However, in the opening round I was referring to the more general use of the phrase, as the following definition from a respectable online dictionary illustrate:

'A negative and ignorant way to express how one feels about something they dislike, think is wrong, or don't care for.
1) "That's so gay my property taxes are going to be $9,000 this year"
2) "That's so gay the bar didn't have Grey Goose."
3) "Dawg, That's so gay the price of gas keeps going up."'

In this sense, the term "that's so gay" stigmatizes the pillow-biting community and should be replaced by "that's so obese".

Thank you.


It is true that some people may be offended by the use of the phrase "that's so gay" when it is used in a context that is not related to something that actually is gay, but free speech is free speech. If someone feels that saying "that's so gay" is the best way to state something, such as the bar's lack of Grey Goose, then they may. The same goes for replacing "gay" with "obese" in that context. It affects some people to use the word "gay" in derogatory context, however, some others simply do not care who they offend, and that is fine. The Constitution protects that right, and that is how it should stay. So, it should not be a forced change.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by morganamonett 1 year ago
Really? That is the best argument that you can come up with?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
It is like the word homophobia it implies fear when actually your just a bigoted aszhole.
Posted by Shadowguynick 1 year ago
Am I forced to take the position that people should use "gay" instead, or can I take the stance on a different derogatory term?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol...I thought this debate had more potential than it realized. Ultimately, I buy that "gay" can be used derogatorily, and so it should be replaced. Pro wins. As for Con, he should've pointed out that Pro was replacing one derogatory word for another...Free speech was new in the last round, and so I couldn't, in good conscience, evaluate it.