Wright Street feels like the Berlin Wall. It divides campus into two towns that have adopted their own divergent cultures. Because I live in Champaign, I occasionally stumble into a Champaign apartment party to see ping pong balls fly across tables of red cups and boys slam keys into the side of their beer cans.

The culture shock can be intense, although not insurmountable. If you excuse the music choice and the smell of post-consumed Keystone that lingers near the bathroom, then these parties are actually quite fun.

While the shameless celebration of shot-gunning beer is forgivable, I am always painfully aware of the variations in vernacular. Of the many differences between Champaign and Urbana, the use of the word “gay” is broader than Wright Street.

While it originally meant “showy” or “happy,” I doubt this is the intended meaning when a frat boy taunts his beer pong opponent by saying “that’s so gay.” Since the 1960s, the word has been used as an alternative to “queer” and “homosexual.” Recently, however, “gay” has undergone somewhat of a transformation.

Now it is an established pejorative insult in youth culture. This phrase is not indicating homosexual behavior when someone changes the music from T.I. to Lady GaGa (although if it was Wham!, you might have some explaining to do). Rather, it is berating the obnoxious music switch as a faux pas. And logically, this causes homosexuality to be equated as a similar social blunder.

Even more problematic is the effect this has on children. In my suburban hometown, I overheard two prepubescent teens obtrusively alternating, “You’re so gay,” followed by, “No, you’re so gay.” After asking them to find a new place to argue about their sexual orientation, I lamented the fact that children grow up in an environment where conversation and colloquialisms reinforce homophobic notions, making it that much more challenging to grow up in an absurdly hetero-normative society.

So what once meant “happy” now has a double meaning as “homosexual” and “annoying.” Struck by the inconsistency of the definition of “gay,” I am reminded of another word facing a similar challenge.

Marriage, as defined by my Oxford-American Dictionary widget, is “the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law.” Many same-sex marriage opponents use this as an argument to support their cause. However, this horribly insipid reasoning is tenuous at best. Words are, and always have been, susceptible to change. They are as pliable as those yellow LiveStrong bracelets.

When homosexuals hear someone exclaim, “That’s so gay,” they are facing the same challenge as a same-sex marriage opponent. This challenge comes down to semantics. Opposing the evolution of words like “gay” and “marriage” means resisting culturally influenced changes in definition. But how can you be a same-sex marriage critic under this logic, while also supporting the pejorative use of “gay”? At the same time, how can a same-sex marriage advocate expect traditionalists to be on board with a redefinition of “marriage,” while still resisting a redefinition of “gay”?

Due to a recent tiff with a friend over his misuse of “gay,” I believe that demanding the public to reject the derogatory meaning is too taxing and, ultimately, futile. Instead, as a same-sex marriage advocate, I find it important to lead by example.

We should simultaneously fight for the redefinition of marriage and leave “gay” behind as an antiquated term that, once upon a time, meant homosexual. The idealist in me would like to consider this a trade. Not only does this diminish the hypocrisy in our fight for the right to marry, but it is also better for the next generation of homosexuals.

If that is too optimistic, however, then we can commandeer “marriage” as retribution for those who have marked their territory on the definition of “gay,” leaving a stench of Keystone in their wake.

Scott is a sophomore in political science and is showy.