1
   

Pushing the Gay Agenda

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 08:38 pm
Sigh.

If anyone has yet found a reason - except ignorant prejudice - to be anti-gay, I haven't heard it yet.

The religious thing only has a ghost of a chance of working as a coherent argument if you take literally, and act upon, every other dumb bit of nonsense expressed in the bible (amongst the decent teaching on ethics) - you know, like killing adulterers and such. And THEN you have the whole barrage of reason to face.

If homophobes wanna call naming something for what it is political correctness (we now have a new thing called political correctnessophobia, lol!) so be it.

Ignorant prejudices are part of life - we all have some of our very own - thing is, I think we should not be rolling ourselves in 'em and whipping ourselves into frenzies over 'em. Mebbe if we tried using reason and education and empathy, like many of us have in our lives in overcoming such problems, and as whole societies have done over time - eg in overcoming the sort of prejudice against black people that saw some countries finding good reason to use them as slaves....we could all move on fro these rather toxic debates.

CJ - when I was a wee lassie, many in your country (and mine, no doubt) were whipping themselves into frenzies of revulsion about black men and white women having relationships - there was similarly no rationally supportable logic to that. Mindless revulsion ought not to dictate our policies on attitudes to fellow humans.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 09:23 pm
I could sign a petition to ebrown's dissertation in a heartbeat. Very well stated, nail on the head sort of thing. I for one don't believe you can convert a person's sexuality, just subvert it or maim it or let it grow naturally. You are as you are by natural disposition.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 10:05 pm
dlowan:

Fear of differences is a very natural human response, probably dates way back to tribal days. We overcome those fears by reaching out, being open, working towards understanding, and realizing that differences do not equate to threats. In fact, differences can be very enriching.

The problem is, some people and institutions choose to play upon those fears rather than help people work towards understanding. Bush et al clearly created a wedge issue, "fear" of gay marriage, to get their sorry butts re-elected.

I tend to believe in the general goodness and fairness of most people, so I believe bigotry against our gay brothers and sisters will soon go the way of racial and religious bigotry.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 10:06 pm
cjhsa,

I have called no one any names. I have asked you a very simple and direct question.

The agenda that I have elaborated in my initial post, is this what you refer to as a "gay agenda"?

Please answer yes or no. You may elaborate if you like.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 11:10 pm
No.

Do a Google search on "gay agenda" and see what you see. If you want to sit over there with your blinders on and go "ooh, we're all so gay and happy", fine. That's your perogative, not mine.

I don't dislike gay people by default. In fact, my godfather was gay, and lived a long gay life. He accepted what he was and didn't force the issue. But if you want me to accept the lifestyle as healthy and normal, sorry, ain't gonna happen. Keep the lifestyle to yourself. I don't want to hear about it (over and over and over again).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 01:45 am
I have a thread going on the subject of homophobia in the anti-gay marriage movement. It is a slog, but a good exercise in thinking/arguing, and it's important to me to fight back against what is accurately labelled as bigotry.

I'm not sure when the phrase 'gay agenda' first rose into popular american culture, but my introduction to it came with Pat Roberts' moral majority folks. They (the evangelical contingent) remain the most strident and activist anti-gay community, though other churches and faith groups are active as well.

There is one sense in which a 'gay agenda' does exist, but that is a civil rights agenda, with gay groups and various other support groups (many are church-centered, or non-aligned civic groups like the ACLU, or folks like us).

But the Roberts crowd and those like his describe a dynamic where gays are motivated and organized to the purpose of recruiting young boys. There's the predictable representative of the view on my thread, and predictably, that's what he's implied I am up to. He's linked into the same 'information' media as almost all of the homophobic voices that show their heads here. Like I said...it's a slog.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 07:56 am
CJ,

I just did a google search on the "gay agenda". I am a bit puzzled about what you are talking about.

The first lnk was a pornography site, but this is the Internet after all.

The second and third are fairly tame political satire, including a pretty amusing cartoon that ends with two men batting eyes at each other (pretty scary stuff).

The fourth is the AFA (a Christian evangelical site) site saying exactly what you would expect them to say. They are arguing that homosexuality risks retribution from God, but don't make any convincing arguments (to me at least) other than that.

Il am still not sure what "gay agenda" means. There is nothing from the top google searches that is the slightest beit scary.

My Freedom Agdena allows diversity and free expression of views. Neither the AFA or the Village Voice are wrong to express their views. It leads to good public debate and our society will continue to grow as democracies do when they are working at their best.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 10:36 am
I personally dislike the term "gay agenda", but I believe it can be traced back to gay organizations themselves. After Stonewall two gay activist groups came into being, the gay liberation front and a breakoff group the gay activist alliance. They had more or less formal meetings where problems were discussed and had an "agenda" as to what areas of discrimination (or lack of attention to the spreading of AIDs) should be faced. Even today, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund and the Human Rights Campaign Fund have agendas as to what their legislative goals should be.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 10:47 am
The term "gay agenda" has become a pejorative buzzzword. Although organized activists of any type set agendas, there is no such thing as a monolithic "gay agenda."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 11:36 am
flyboy804 wrote:
I personally dislike the term "gay agenda", but I believe it can be traced back to gay organizations themselves. After Stonewall two gay activist groups came into being, the gay liberation front and a breakoff group the gay activist alliance. They had more or less formal meetings where problems were discussed and had an "agenda" as to what areas of discrimination (or lack of attention to the spreading of AIDs) should be faced. Even today, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund and the Human Rights Campaign Fund have agendas as to what their legislative goals should be.


I suppose it is possible that the term rose out of the gay community itself, in some such context as 'this is our agenda'. Or that Anita Bryant saw a list of five organization targets and referred to that as the 'gay agenda'. If anyone has an OED kicking about, there might be some historical usage notes there.

But the usage of the term now is pretty much exclusively within the anti-gay christian movement, where it is a knee-jerk pejorative quite like the 'communist movement'. Folks here will use the term in that manner exactly, but when one asks them for evidence of what it might be and how that's known, the result is always (and I mean always) a link to some christian anti-gay site. (noting that not all christian groups consider homosexuality sinful or 'unnatural' etc, and that some other faith groups do, and some non-faith groups do)
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 03:07 pm
I would say the gay agenda is the forced acceptance of the homosexual life style on the community as a whole. On TV there have been very large emergence of gay TV shows as well as positive only gay TV characters.

Homosexuality is being forced into the schools as a way for children to become diverse regardless of how parents fell on the issue. School is not the place to push such ideas, when we have children that can't even read at their grade level or complete basic math. When schools start posting signs in certain class rooms as gay safe zones, meaning that if a gay student goes there they can receive free counseling and have a teacher to speak to. Posting the upside down pink triangle on doors out side of said classrooms is pushing an agenda. Where is the fat kids safe zone, where is the geeks and nerds safe zone?

A group named PFLAG and they are targeting the schools and children to push diversity on acceptance. They have programs for children as young kindergarten and range through 12th grade. I don't think this is acceptable at all and is indeed an agenda. Why would you want to target children in grades that barely understand the difference between boys and girls let alone the difference between gay and straight? My son who is only 7 doesn't even like girls yet and still thinks they are yucky. If you are going to implement such programs then target older kids such as those in grades 7th and higher. Anything else smacks of an agenda to undercut parents.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 03:15 pm
"Posting the upside down pink triangle on doors out side of said classrooms is pushing an agenda. Where is the fat kids safe zone, where is the geeks and nerds safe zone?"

Hopefully, everywhere.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 03:28 pm
Funny how trivial things sometimes reveal how a person thinks. All these years, I never realized that there was a up side or a down side of a triangle.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 03:51 pm
dlowan wrote:
"Posting the upside down pink triangle on doors out side of said classrooms is pushing an agenda. Where is the fat kids safe zone, where is the geeks and nerds safe zone?"

Hopefully, everywhere.


If that is true, then how come gay students have to have special protection, in special places?
0 Replies
 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 03:55 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 03:58 pm
Mebbe because they get very special harassment? Which, unless you are being wilfully blind, I think you might well agree with.

But you mistake my point.

Here, schools are developing (some waaay better than others) non-harassment policies - for all students.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 05:18 pm
dlowan wrote:
Mebbe because they get very special harassment? Which, unless you are being wilfully blind, I think you might well agree with.

But you mistake my point.

Here, schools are developing (some waaay better than others) non-harassment policies - for all students.


Isn't harassment harassment regardless of whom it is pointed at? There is no such thing as special harassment. What you have is one group seeking special treatment and then because they receive special treatment wanting more.

Isn't the harassment a fat kid receives just as damaging to their psyche as harassment to a gay student? I don't see a difference there. I was harassed because I was a white student in a majority Hispanic school. I didn't receive any special treatment because I was a minority. Kids are going to be kids, what ever happened to the old saying of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"?
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 05:48 pm
Greyfan wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 06:09 pm
Angie, you hit the nail on the head, all we want is what everyone else wants, our basic rights. Some will accept us, some won't, so what?
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 07:17 pm
Chrissee wrote:
Angie, you hit the nail on the head, all we want is what everyone else wants, our basic rights. Some will accept us, some won't, so what?


Chrissee: As I have said before on A2K, the notion of one person "accepting" or "tolerating" another really bothers me. Perhaps it's just the choice of words, a semantic thing. Accepting seems to suggest a judgment, and tolerating seems to suggest "putting up with" someone. (I do understand that some people use those words in a more positive way.)

And your basic rights are exactly what this struggle is about. America is a land of differences, always has been; those who choose to use those differences to divide us are despicable. America is about equality and justice, and most Americans, if given the chance, will be fairminded, which is why I truly believe that your rights will come.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 02:58:01