The story of .Gay: This bid is too gay! This bid is not gay enough! This bid is just right? Dot Gay LLC has once again appealed the decision that it does not represent the gay community in its bid to run the .gay top-level domain. The company, which has been trying to get hold of the dot-word for nearly four years, appealed a previous decision that its application did not cover a sufficient number of gay people. In …
Not sure what the word should be,
Are they having the same problems with, for example, Dot Lesbian or is it the case that Dot Gay is doomed to failure because the Dot Hetero community associate Gay with being a 'bloke' thing whilst all the other flavours of sexuality get left out?
>The religeous nutcases making the decisions didn't know what it meant. So they let it through.
Haha! The thought of ICANN being a hotbed of religious fervency made laugh so hard! Oh wait, were you being serious? Does everyone you don't like get the label "religious nutcase"? If by "religious" you mean "Worshipers of Mammon" then you might be right.
I'm sure that's entirely different from the prospective owners of the TLD. Purer than the driven snow they are.
ICANN (unwritten but obvious) policy is to accumulate as much filthy lucre as possible.
Mucking Dot Gay around until they give up so an auction can generate meellions of dollars is entirely consistent with this policy.
I presume each step of the appeals progress has associated administration fees...
the 1890s would be a more appropriate lesson for historical purposes.
A battle for a .gay TLD without the LBT seems rather exclusionarily *cough* sexist, and more about the MONEY - no matter how desirable for political correctness! The .lgbt TLD is too easily blocked to an extremely large portion of the world's population due to undesirable connotations in many countries... especially those predominantly Muslim.
With .gay visibly promoting the 1890s and light hearted feelings, perhaps the more sexual interpretation can occasionally slide under the censorial radar.
Yet another similar TLD just isn't needed to add to the confusion. Adding .biz to compete with .com was bad enough, though arguably justifiable; it's all about the money. The .lgbt TLD should be sufficient... for now.
I think everyone will. Is it really likely that ".straight" could in any way represent a "community" whose homogeneous interests can uniquely be represented by some self-appointed proponents of heterosexual well-being? And might it be excruciatingly patronising to pretend that it could?
If so, the same applies (if I may be indelicate) the other way around.
The .lgbt TLD is too easily blocked to an extremely large portion of the world's population due to undesirable connotations in many countries... especially those predominantly Muslim..
Or predominantly Catholic
Or Predominantly Irish
Or Predominantly American Bible Belt
Or Predominantly African
Or Predominantly Russian
Or.
Or.
Or.
Wait a minute ...........There's appears to be a lot more than just Muslims that would be blocking those TLD's..
If there is only one God how come the Muslim one said that Gay = Bad and yet our Western God thinks it's now Ok... Religion really has become a very "special" form of politics....
Anonymous because anything even very, very, very, remotely borderline against the common percieved poliitically correct opinion is becoming taboo on El Reg
> Or Predominantly Irish
Not fair at all, with the Irish people having voted in favour of gay marriage in a recent referendum that is just incorrect.
Otherwise I have up voted simply because you've pointed out the incorrectness of singling out Islam in the original post.
> Re: Religion really has become a very "special" form of politics....
It was always the case. It evolved in all it's many forms as a means of enforcing stability through support of the ruling class. The priestly castes were keepers of knowledge in the days before we had writing, a function which continued into the days of writing. This knowledge supported tradition and maintained the balance of power. That is why, for example, we have 26 Lords Spiritual in the house of Lords, i.e. 26 bishop's from the C of E.
"Not fair at all, with the Irish people having voted in favour of gay marriage in a recent referendum that is just incorrect"
There was approxiamtely a 60% turnout, and from those, 64% said yes. Which is the equivalant of only 38.4% of the population..... Not exactly an overwhelming majority...
Ireland is a Roman Catholic country, the Pope views on Gays are not exactly welcoming which creates a major dilemma for that 38.4%.... Do you vote for the church/God or do you vote for your local politician who is playing the emotional card ( The Sinn Fein pushed for a Yes vote)... ( Ironically, Neither of which ultimately care about you, unless you are paying something towards their upkeep)
Also, Northern Ireland are going through their "Fifth" voting session... Why, they have already voted "No" the first 4 times.... This reeks of a hidden agenda..
Homophobic much?
62.1% is a resounding result, and 60.5% turnout is very high.
Ireland showed far more interest in and support for same-sex marriage than most other democratic questions. For example, the current president of the US had a higher than usual turnout at 57.2%, with 51.1% for Obama.
Yes, the Irish are far more interested in allowing equal marriage rights to all their citizens than most Western democracy are in who governs them.
PS: If two strangers love each other and want to, WTF shouldn't they get married? It cannot possibly have any negative effect whatsoever upon you or anyone you know, so why stop them?
"PS: If two strangers love each other and want to, WTF shouldn't they get married? It cannot possibly have any negative effect whatsoever upon you or anyone you know, so why stop them?"
Oh shit, someone played the "homophobic card", you do realise that that is as pathetic as most of the policitians playing the "won't anyone think about the children card".
Have a look though history about what happens just after promiscuity among the same sex increases.... The occidental society has indeed almost reached the the end of it's successfull period , we could continue but we refuse to look at ourselves objectively.. You, my dear commentard, are one of the blind helping the ignorant to reach the path of absolute catastrophy...
So more people supported it than opposed it? I'm not sure how this makes it somehow invalid, just over 1/3 of people supported it, less than 1/3 supported it and the rest were, in one way or another, happy to let those people decide it for them by not voting. Hell, most elections are won with a smaller proportion of the population than that
@werdsmith
Yes, I thought about that but I felt that the Irish/Scottish cases were deeper rooted than just religion.
It kinda makes you realise that the whole Pro-Gay campaign is only really a couple of US States + some parts of Europe....As mentioned before I see it as one of the cards that politicians have in their hands.. When they no longer feel that it can acquire them votes then they will simply stop talking about it, same story for the media.
I for one will be Excessively Happy when the Queers and Homos stop using it and give it back to me.
Not that I have anything against Back-door Scuttlers or Rug Munchers - I think they are Brilliant.
(Slightly less comfortable about them giving it back to Rolf Harris and his Two Little Boys though).
4 down votes; ah well, some people cant take a joke, even when it has a serious point - "Gay" is being used as slang, and like many of the other words used, may fall out of favour quite quickly, leaving the tld vacant.
In fact the ONLY slang word for homosexual I can think of that isnt now considered a bad word is "Brilliant". (17th/18th century)
Hands up all those who didnt know that "Brilliant" used to be used as slang for homosexual.
Hands up all those who didnt know that "Brilliant" used to be used as slang for homosexual.
That could explain a few things.. People always used to say I was "brilliant" but I never felt that my actual intelligence met their acclaim...
That said, I have had some very brilliant friends... ;)
Here's how language works (all of them)
1) People make sounds that have specific known meanings
2) Sounds and meanings change over time.
3) Er, that's it.
If a set of people decide one day to start using the word 'sick' to exclaim how good something is, there is no objective reason for this being a bad thing. Wind forward 100 years and the meaning might have died out or become the only 'correct' way to communicate such an idea. We can't know now, but moaning about it shows how little you know about how our language is what it is today.
'Gay' has gained a new meaning, and the old one has become archaic... but it might not have done. It isn't all that long since people started using the word 'fruit' to describe homosexuals. Did that destroy the use of the word 'fruit' to mean apples etc? No. Of course not.
Nobody will give a damn if you want to continue using a word to mean an archaic meaning. They just won't understand you. Is that what you want?
This is language. Deal with it!
Thing is, the whole reason for the last rejection is that they were trying to cover more than just people who were homosexual, but also included things like transexual. As a community they generally are pretty closely associated, but .homosexual would work for everyone they were trying to bring under the umbrella as well as .gay would
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
