We all have agendas to push.
Maybe I'm missing the point here -it wouldn't be the first time- but it seems to me "pushing the gay agenda" would be objectionable only if it was a movement to:
outlaw heterosexual marriage;
deny health benefits to people who live together just because they happen to be male and female;
prohibit straight people who reveal theair sexual preference from serving in the military;
bar glorifications -or even depictions- of the straight life style in books, movies, TV shows, and songs.
I have a perhaps unrealistic belief in the concept that more freedom is better than less; that the prohibition of choices made by consenting adults is more harmful to the social fabric than the discomfort others may feel when "exposed" to those choices; and that tolerance of those willing to tolerate us is the cornerstone of a just society.
Very well said Greyfan. And your belief is not only NOT unrealistic, but very American. Thanks for that input.
As Blatham points out, the true "gay agenda" is, one of actively seeking deserved legal civil rights, not, IMO, of seeking "acceptance" from anyone. I have said this many times here on A2K and therefore have absolutely NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of entering into yet another dialogue with those who mischaracterize the movement.
The HRC (Human Rights Campaign), to which I proudly belong, clearly states their intentions at hrc.org, for those who, rather than invent an agenda to denegrate and demonize, might actually be interested in the truth.