Warning depending on your locale some of this post may be NSFW, although I don't feel that educational usage should be covered by censorship several sexist/racially charged words are used for demonstration.
However, this "new meaning" cannot be clearly defined. There are implications in the way it is used, that it may refer to ineptitude, stupidity, or a differing opinion considered lesser by the user of the phrase, but none of these definitions are very concrete. The word "gay" became a pejorative, as in the instance of "That's so gay," because the word was linked to homosexuality.
While the argument can be made that there are now two new definitions of the word gay (in addition to its original meaning) the latest would not have come about with the existence of the former. There is still a connection there.
Don't get me wrong, I harbor no ill will or any such towards anyone for their choices (or genetic makeup) in sexual preferences. I just can't with a good feeling agree with this. I fully understand the why's that are explained as to their offense taking at the word. I just don't as fully agree with it. Opinions can only be argued for so long before it's an obvious partisan deadlock. I don't even use that word. The problem is that from a linguistics standpoint most culture related euphemisms go through pejoration, in fact I can think of very few that haven't. So is the life of a culture referential euphemism. Once this occurs melioration is very rare. Example evolution of euphemism->pejorative shifts. I added a ~~ section to denote words not included as this is simply intended to show the manner not the complete history.
cripple refers to 'handicapped' persons in a non disparaging manner --> Cripple shifts pejoratively --> ~interim euphemistic evolutions~ --> Handicappped replaces previous pejorative shifting word --> new euphemism replaces handicapped.
I'll show two examples for the homosexual issue here;
Pejorative shift;
Homosexual refers to gays in an non demeaning manner --> shift occurs, however homosexual is reduced to homo pejoratively but the euphemistic shift also occurs --> ~interim shifts~ --> gay is the euphemistic fore word --> currently in the pejorative shift. Actually two, since Gay is often used to harass heterosexuals as well as refer to something in a negative light, the two uses differ in their delivery and context. [] also Homosexual still retains it's euphemistic value since it's shift was not homonymic but rather having been shortened to homo.
Faggot/fag becomes pejorative towards homosexuals --> terms arise showing melioration, such as fag-hag, that are used by homosexuals in non-disparaging manner --> Many homosexuals now refer to each other as "faggot" or "fag" however just as with many other shifts such as this ( redneck, chink, redskin, ****** ) the use by someone outside of the culture that the remark normally disparages could not use it in a euphemistic manner.
I guess my opinion really sits with lingual history, it's gonna go where it goes, it's the way things are. I guess I can agree the connection is there since to follow the euphemism treadmill it has to be related. However I'll maintain that it's a mass-conscious effect and the mass-conscious of a language does not care. Why should anyone take offense to a given? (This trend can be observed in thousands of years of etymology).
I do however also have a slight misgiving about totally agreeing with you due to the fact that the pejorative shift of 'gay' was so distinct that it may eventually lose all relation to the euphemistic 'gay'. IMHO - Operational usage of a word that's gone into such a bipartite shift often has a difficulty with delivery insuring correct context, this case again does not contain that difficulty since using this pejorative in reference to a person actually is using a unique usage unrelated to the shift in question. Thus while the actuality of the definition may be difficult to pen down, it's usage still maintains zero contextual relations to Gay as per Homosexual.
robin f.
----
All typos are the responsibility of the author, he maintains no liability for his lack of typing skills while in desperate need of sleep...