Talk:Gay agenda

Archives : Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Satirical use of the term

The following text was removed from the article: "Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically." (with two references.)

This sentence is true (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) I don't see how the sentence is sarcastic or derogatory. This is analogous to last paragraph in feminazi. We can play with the wording, but such use is widespread and warrants inclusion. Fireplace 22:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is dripping with disdain. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. period. DavidBailey 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally disagree. It captures the attitude of the "other" side of the debate, i.e. sarcastic. CovenantD 03:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The content of the references are dripping with disdain, and that's the point: the term is often used satirically (the top google hit for "homosexual agenda" is the betty bowers article). The description of the satirical use is bland and neutral. Fireplace 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

References to the satirical use are very important - as Fireplace says - it's the top hit on google. Sophia 10:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, refer to satire, but don't cite hate speech to illustrate the point. DavidBailey 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The specific citations are both popular (number 1 on google and number 2 on google blogsearch for "homosexual agenda") and are representative of the satirical use of the term. Neither one comes close to "hate speech", but even if they did, it's not clear how that's relevant (cf. an article about the KKK citing hate speech as an example). Fireplace 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Popularity is not a good qualifier for a citation of encyclopedic quality. The purpose of the article is not to mock those who disagree with the LGBT movement. DavidBailey 11:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I sort of see both sides to this. I easily see that some use it to mock. I also agree that cites should be of high quality if possible, and when many exist, choose only the best. I have not researched the cites so I do not know what they say. But, perhaps, this sentence could ALSO move to a separate section about alternative uses of the term. I'm a little bit AC/DC on this issue... I could go either way. --Anon 64 13:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am completely okay with having one satiric refence, as long as it is not insulting. Otherwise, it's being used as an excuse to insult the "uneducated anti-gay bigots". DavidBailey 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be raising two objections. First, that the claim is over-cited. To the extent that over-citation is problematic (it's better than undercitation), I don't think it applies here. The two examples show different uses of the term: one shows how those in the LGBT movement appropriate the term for their own serious use, the other shows how the term is used in satire.

The second, more serious, objection is that the cited sources contain offensive material. But remember that WP isn't censored. An article on political cartoons should certainly reference offensive satire, an article on the KKK should certainly reference hate-speech, etc. Fireplace 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a second satiric reference to insult the eductated' anti-gay bigots? I'd hate to miss anyone. :-) Al 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph has degraded into POV

As of 19 June 2006, over the last 7 days, this article's first paragraph has gone fron Neutral to POV (looks like gay POV to me). I am disappointed. For example it is described as a "a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement" but there is no evidence that all or most of the people who oppose LGBT Rights use this term. I also see no evidence that those who use this term are concerned with every aspect of the LGBT Rights movements, but only with those issues that they consider to be of concern to them. In otherwords, this current paragraph labels incorrectly. While this may be a sort of true statement, the way this is worded is too strong... it is POV and value laden. It labels incorrectly and without validation. The "especially to conservative Christians" statement... Where is the poll of Conservative Christians that makes this label so pervasive? This blatent labeling of the people who use the term is simply biased and POV. That phrase used to be an sort of an after thought or a secondary thought and as such, it was more appropriately positioned with respect to its importance. Finally, I do not know that "often" those who take the term seriously would use it satirically or sarcastically. Some might -- sometimes, but is that often? I do not think so.

Please remove the POV. I think that somewhere back about 12 June the first paragraph was much better. By better, I mean neutral and non-judgmental. --Anon 64 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, how is the current version SUPERIOR in NPOV to this version below?

What I see as the better paragraph

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters[4], who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights.

vs the Current Paragraph

homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is considered offensive by many,[1], particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.[2][3]

Seems to me that one test of NPOV is how little reaction it creates. How relatively boring and yet complete it is in concept. I think the former paragraph is far superior to the latter paragraph in this regard. --Anon 64 05:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version has evolved because of problems with the earlier version you cited above. (1) the gay rights movement is much broader than "gay activists" (not to mention that in these contexts "gay activist" is usually used in a derogatory way), (2) as the Dobson quote shows, the term refers to an agenda supposedly broader than increased acceptance, (3) the older version isn't clear that "what they see as" modifies "traditional morality", (4) the older version doesn't mention satirical use of the term, which is common (see discussion above), (5) most users of the term are conservative Christians (a quick google search evidences this), (6) most users of the term (except satirically) oppose the LGBT rights movement (note that the article doesn't claim the converse, that most opposers of the movement use the term -- I think you asked for a citation for the latter claim -- we can add "some" if it's ambiguous though). Fireplace 05:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You mention "problems" with the former version, and yet you do not really show any or you get it wrong. For example, you mention "gay rights movement" as much broader. Yes it is broader and because it is broader it is also wrong from what I can tell. The people who use this term of "Homosexual Agenda" are mainly concerned with the actions of ACTIVISTS. In fact, this seems to be a theme in their writings... some sense of a cabal of secret ACTIVISM. Further, you mention the "Dobson Quote" but that one person sees things one way does not mean that this is the general rule. That is, in fact, a part of my problem with the term "Homosexual Agenda as well - a general labeling that is simply too broad. But at least editors of Wikipedia do not have to be just as bad as the people who use the terms "homosexual agenda". And that is what you are doing. Note, also, that the term was not "gay activist" but "gay rights activist". That was deliberate: Many of the activists are NOT gay. I do not see what is offensive about "gay rights activist" -- how is that offensive? (Good grief I feel that the world is getting full of trifling, trivial people if they are so easily offended!). I do not have a problem with "what they see as" modifying traditional morality, because that is a fact, it is their perception of traditional morality. (I consider perception to be relatively more important than reality in such cases). I think that was clear before. The satirical use is NOT common. It sometimes happens. As far as a quick Google Search, I just did one and here is what I found.... with a search of "Homosexual Agenda" I reviewed the first 10 pages that came up. The ONLY page out of these 10 that used the term "Conservative Christian" (or had the word "conservative" and "Christian" in anywhere near close proximity) was the first page, where these "Conservative Christians" were being made FUN OF. In other words, that term was apparently used to degrade them. Most sites were silent on the matter of "christianity" though 2 had the word in there. Several more had the word "Conservative" but it was far from a majority. And from my own personal and not insignificant experience on the matter, there are MANY people who are barely religious or not religious at all, who hold the views described here. So this labeling is probably inappropriate, particularly in the structure of the sentence where it is given such distinct notice. It is just incorrect. As far as "most users" of the term, I am not sure you are right. Perhaps more cites from Google, but I am not sure that counts as "most users of the term". Gays use the term often enough (and without being sarcastic) that, even if others use it more, it is not so exclusive as to be written up as though it were practically universal. As far as the sarcastic use, I agree that some do that. Should we really list the secondary useages of the term as though this were a dictionary? I think it would be appropriate to mention "other uses" in a separate section, not in the heading. ----Anon 64 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Have to say that I agree with your points. The current version fixes problems found in previous ones. Al 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Have to say that I disagree. As I pointed out above. I am very much opposed to the current version. I think it has FAR more problems, including both bias and inaccuracy.--Anon 64 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - "gay rights supporters" in the old version was misleading as it implies some subset of people whereas most people who don't think homosexuality is a sin realize the term is used agressively and object to it. The sub set is actually the people who use this term seriously. Sophia 07:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that "Gay rights supporters" was ever in the previous version. It was "gay rights activists". And it INTENTIONALLY implies a subset of people. That is because IT IS A SUBSET OF PEOPLE. The term "Homosexual Agenda" is a silly term. It does not really exist any more than a "Homeowners Agenda" exists. Yes, there are some homeowners who have agenda. And some that agree with each other. But they do not represent all Homeowners. That is what I see as offensive to the term "Homosexual Agenda". It lumps everyone into a big group. I have said this all along. Homosexuals are far more diverse than this and some even oppose the so-called "homosexual agenda". So it is not an accurate term, but it serves the purpose of a sound-bite society. Having said that, YOU seem to be turning it into a term for GENERAL GAY BASHING, which it is NOT. You are so worried about its "offensiveness" to some that you have turned the paragraph into a total POV pushing slant.

To reiterate -- I am ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to a version that works to declare this term to be "Gay Bashing" as you have put it. I do not agree that there is "a" homosexual agenda or even "the" homosexual agenda, so in that regard, I think the people who use the term are incorrect. However, I DO believe that what these people are calling "the homosexual agenda" is the effort by ACTIVISTS (not everyone) to make changes that they do not like. I do not think this is the same as Gay Bashing. And you evidently do. As a result, you have colored this article in a strong POV. I think you do not even see it. But it is very clear to me immediately.

Again, we should try for something that does NOT read like a pamphlet by one group or the other. Something smooth, flat and boring. You have not succeeded and I am utterly opposed to the current version because I consider it to be 1) innacurate, 2) biased and 3) feeding negative stereotypes on both sides. --Anon 64 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In some of the archived discussions, I have outlined why I believe that the version you prefer was poorly phrased--this was mostly grammatical, but partially content-based. I am not sure I see why you believe the current version sounds like a pamphlet. I think it is much better than the version you prefer.--Bhuck 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Anon has a point when it comes to what some opponents say they mean by "homosexual agenda," as they sometimes later state "homosexual activists" in quotes or articles employing the term "homosexual agenda." That being said, I think there are problems with Anon's revision. The activist/homosexual distinction can be addressed elsewhere in the article. Gibbsale 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While I would not suggest that they are in favor of ANY homosexual activities, I think that their focus is not so much against homosexual activities as it is against what they view as activist efforts to change the social structure of society. This is, to my eye, a different thing than what is worded in the current intro, which makes it seem like just general opposition to all things gay. Such opposition may ALSO attend with some of these folks but the term "Homosexual Agenda" seems specifically related to just these activist things not to all behaviors. And I think that the first paragraph should be right. --Anon 64 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think using the term "opponents" without clear reference to what they are opposing is confusing. That is a problem with Anon's preferred version, and it is also a problem with your comment above. What opponents use the term "homosexual activists" in quotes?--Bhuck 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I how about this:

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used in the U.S. to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters[4], who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights. Sometimes, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.[2][3]

It first simply defines the term. Then it limits its useage to detractors and defines their objections, while not ignoring the possiblity that others might use the term as well (and I am not just talking about sarcasim or satire). It then recognizes that some find it offensive but might use it differently. I debated putting "some" in front of gay rights activists, but found that too wordy and awkward. I also considered mentioning Conservative Christians as part of the social conservative comment but it is not just Conservative Christians, I did not want to list more, and so in the end I decided not to single out any particularly group. I debated however that it might be appropriate to mention "religiously oriented social conservatives" because, while there are exceptions, a sufficient number are from that perspective that it is a reasonable grouping.

It seems to me to retain some of the boring blandness that is appropriate to an NPOV effort on a controversial subject. --Anon 64 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see boringness and blandness as goals in and of themselves, but your suggested version is not so bad. I don't think the use of the term is limited to the US, though, even if it is most prominent there. Also, I am not sure if it is necessary (or accurate) to identify who it is that has as a goal the increasing acceptance of homosexuality. Suppose soccer moms were also in favor of increasing the acceptance of homosexuality in the media? I think social conservatives would still view the increasing acceptance of homosexuality as part of what they call the gay agenda. How would the first sentence in the following form be? "The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used to describe the goal of increased acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture." Then we could follow that with a sentence in which we say who uses it and also add that they believe that these are the goals of gay rights activists: "Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as an attempt by gay rights activists to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from what social conservatives consider to be traditional morality." In the following sentence, it would be better to change "the movement" to "the gay rights movement" to avoid ambiguity.--Bhuck 11:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that they are not goals. In fact, I would generally say that they are a bad thing. It is only when things are controversial and hot that I think blandness becomes a virtue. You may be right about the term not being limited to the US. I do not know for sure, but I think that in the general context of the fears about societal change, the term is more prevalent here... based upon a Google search. But I would defer to anyone with better information. And that really could be almost anyone in that regard. I think some soccer moms ARE in favor of that. I would argue that they are the "battlefield" between the activists supporting gay rights and those who oppose those same activists. I would agree that social conservatives would consider the development of acceptance of homosexuality as part of the so called gay agenda. It is, after all, outlined in that book that is cited. I think I like your first sentence. I like the idea of a quick and sort of direct first sentence that gets to the heart of it pretty quickly, followed by limiting (perhaps increasing limitations) in later sentences. That gets around some wording problems. Without seeing it all together I sort of like your version.--Anon 64 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

After trying to put it all together (forgive me if I ramble.. I am a bit tired) I think it is important to keep the sense of "activists" in there. To me this whole thing... is a reaction to activist efforts. It is only because of activists that this term exists. In fact, it could pretty much be said that it is not a homosexual agenda but rather a political activists's agenda supporting homosexuality in society. That would almost be so correct that I would not object to the term. The only minor problem with it is that some of these activists have somewhat different versions of what they want. But, you see, that is my sense of things and that is why I am so consistently focused on this being not a general gay bashing thing but labled for what it is... political activists battling back and forth for that soccer mom's opinion.

The term "Homosexual Agenda" was probably not coined to be particularly offensive, but probably to label that political activist effort. It is really a standard term in political circles. At this point it may not quite exactly rise to the level of vulgar propaganda, but it is clearly a part of this fight of words in the media. And both sides are playing with their own vocabularies.

It is, of course, complicated by the fact that when gays use the term, they are not offended by it, even when used as a criticism of activists' "agenda". But when others who are not gay use it for the same purpose, it is then declared offensive. This adds a layer of complexity that is annoying when trying to write and I originally did not like the sense of offensiveness because I felt it would greatly complicate the writing. But I have come to feel that it may really be offensive to some. Seems to me like it might be seeking for opportunities to be offended, but then, I am not in their shoes. And even then it is would be a real feeling of being offended even if it was pushed along by a motivation. I note that intentionally declaring that you are offended would "fit in" with the supposed agenda outlined in the book cited. If that were really the case, then we would be (againj) furthering the propaganda stuff. (I suppose, a cynic would say... its offensive because it exposes their tactics!!!) But I think that some (not all) might really be offended. It is certainly easy to be offended if you have your attenna out for any injury, and people who feel persecuted tend to do that. It could be offensive if only because gays are automatically lumped together as though they were some sort of automaton borg-like entity (de humanizing). Or because it is emotionally hooked in their minds with an effort to quash their goals and so the term is at least unsettling and seemingly reeks of hatred for them. As I said, I doubt that was the intent, but it could be the effect, and so I agree that the first paragraph should mention this feeling of offense, even though there is some chance we are being manipulated. Weighed in the balance I think it is the right side to take. I know its inclusion is not currently an issue but I wanted to digress upon why some of this is so hard to write cleanly. --Anon 64 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can support Anon 64's first paragraph in this section. Sorry for not commenting sooner, but I've been away. DavidBailey 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Marginally related information

The section "In religion and philosophy" is not a good part of the article. It really should be just left to article regarding Opposition to Gay rights or whatever. A reference to that article is sufficient. This part does not refer to the very specific concept of "Gay Agenda".

The section about "Judicial reference to the term" sticks out like a sore thumb. It is really just a specific instance of the use of the term and is not particularly so wonderful or noteable so that it deserves its own section.

I think the article would be concise and to the point if both sections were eliminated. They are trivial elements or not significantly related to the topic. --Anon 64 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. The basic idea is that religious and philosophical opposition is a primary reason the term is used today. Also, the judicial reference is an example of how the term has become well known, even at the highest levels of government and law. I think both are relevant enough to remain in the article. DavidBailey 11:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-read the first section, and I can see how it might sort of be relevant, though it is muddy. The Scalia quote is really not that important. It could be simply a footnote. At the very least, its presentation should be more in line with what you said: It is an example of its common use, rather than an example of use in Law.

The first section is very very marginally important. The concept of religious and philosophical opposition, I think, is already covered elsewhere so this is not needed. But even if it isn't covered elsewhere this section is not really about the "Gay Agenda" but rather it is about opposition to Homosexuality in general. It pretty much admits that in the first paragraph. And I think that is an incorrect view generally -- that the concept of "Homosexual Agenda" is tightly tied to general opposition to homosexuality. There could be specific examples where it is, but I really believe that is not the rule in the sense that it was this opposition to homosexuality that drove this term but rather the reaction to an activist effort to enact various changes to society generally. Maybe you do not consider this a big distinction but I do. There is an underlying social clash that can be characterized as opposition to homosexuality generally and there is a separate but related clash on a political level that operates by different rules and vocabulary. It is in this latter relm that the term "homosexual agenda" operates and not the former. Putting them together I thing blurs this important distinction. In particular a person may not need to be especially alarmed about homosexual behavior per se, and yet, though a fear of societal change still be concerned about the homosexual agenda (and I think thats how many of them are). On the other hand, a person does not need to fear society change in any way and still be opposed to homosexuality. So I see a pretty big difference -- even though I can understand how someone else might not. If the article does not recognize this difference I think it will be both inaccurate and it will be biased. Hope that makes sense. (Im kinda sleepy so I may not be expressing myself very clearly)

And then the article sort of wildly dives into a statement by the new Bishop in the Episcopal Church. That statement, in itself is somewhat relevant though it does not really support the rest of the article which describes homosexual agenda as a term used by opponents or sarcastically. So perhaps the first part of this section could be deleted and then a new section called something like "Friendly uses of the term" or "Other uses of the term" or something like that. Maybe Scalia goes there although really I just do not see the great significance of his comment.--Anon 64 13:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anon64 that these sections should be removed. This has come up several times now, and the prevailing view has been that they are only indirectly relevant and should be removed or integrated. Fireplace 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, as I've said for weeks now. David Bailey's claims of relevance are not convincing. The only reason I haven't removed them is because I have no doubt that he would immediately revert. CovenantD 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, let him. If he reverts against consensus, he will either have to give up or face a block on 3RR violation. Our job is to enforce the consensus, understanding that any attempt by him to edit-war will be ultimately self-destructive. Al 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed that paragraph. If Bailey reverts, I will not counter-revert. It will be up to the consensus of editors to make their views known. Al 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am avoiding making any direct changes either way, because I am interested in a cooperative venture. I prefer to try to make my case here and give it time for consideration. I do not feel that in this topic, making a case and then making an immediate change is helpful. I believe everyone wants to do the right thing but we go about it in different ways, and may not agree on what "right" is. But our hearts are not evil! I appreciate everone's generous and thoughtful responses. --Anon 64 13:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The relevance/importance objections were to the whole sections. I've removed them. There might be room for some of this material in a footnote, but if so it should be rewritten from scratch. Fireplace 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon 64 is correct - these sections unbalance the article and should not be there. I think we have a fair consensus for these changes. Sophia 07:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert when three or four people with the same POV agree. Could someone explain why information relevant to the article has to be deleted? It is not in the leading paragraph. Most of the text has been removed, except for a brief description. What harm does it do to the article to leave it in place? It shows: 1) The religious basis that most social conservatives have to define the term and use the term. And 2) a notable example of someone in a high position using the term. These are both relevant to the article. DavidBailey 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to not like removing information, so my bias is to agree with you in that regard. After reading several comments, I think that the two quotes showing useage of the term "Homosexual Agenda" by Gene Robinson and by Antonin Scalia, could be preserved in a final section that may show how the term can be used in other contexts. Having said that, I am still not sure that Scalia's quote fits. I think that the comments about the religious aspect should not really be a whole separate section. Perhaps a way around this is to open the new section (I do not know what to call it) like this

Although the term is generally used by social conservatives it is sometimes used by others as well. And then list some quotes with minor context comments.

I also STRONGLY feel that the link to: LGBT rights opposition should be kept prominently somewhere. Perhaps in a "See also" category.

The part that I see as really truly throw away is this: "Most groups who use the term are also opposed to its fulfillment, and to the advancement of the gay rights movement generally. Christian, Jewish, and Islamic social conservatives view homosexuality as a sin, and its practice and acceptance in society as a weakening of moral standards. This is a primary reason why many religious social conservatives oppose the gay rights movement. Some also cite natural law as a reason." And "A coalition of mainline Protestant groups also recently campaigned successfully against a referendum in the state of Washington to repeal an anti-discrimination measure passed to protect gay men and lesbians." To my eye, these defocus the topic and are sufficiently and properly covered under other articles. I am, I think, open to reason though!  :-) --Anon 64 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking Anon64's points in order... I don't think that the Scalia or Robinson quotes are out-of-the-norm uses. Scalia uses the term in a way similar to Dobson or Sears (as quoted above), and Robinson in the "claiming the term for one's own" way (but not, this time, for comic effect). I made some edits to get them back in... see what you think.

I agree about LGBT rights opposition, and it is prominently linked in the first sentence. Fireplace 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I know it should be Linked because I think that there is a strong sense or element of that around this issue. At least there is a smell of it. But that first sentence bugs me as it is now, because it makes the use of the term "Homosexual Agenda" essentially synonymous with Gay Rights Opposition. Maybe its a difference without a distinction but I see a different quality to being opposed to Gay rights and being opposed to changes in social order. In my mind I see people who are opposed to gay rights as having no real concerns about society, just being against gays. And I see people who are opposed to changes in society as not necessarily having a problem with gays being gay, but they are concerned with lifestyle. For example this guy who has the "GodhatesFags" website. To me he does not look like he gives a lick about society. He is in fact anti-society ... look at how many societies he hates. And he also hates gays. On the other hand, I have heard very some very rational voices -- including some that support various aspects of protections for gays -- not be in favor of societal changes and to speak out against them. To me, this distinction is important. --Anon 64 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone could (and probably does) use the term with that distinction in mind, but it's not always used that way. A possible case in point is the Scalia example... he cites anti-job-discrimination requirements as evidence that the "law profession has signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda", and in the broader context of sodomy laws. These more clearly fall into the "gay rights" bag than the "societal change" bag.

A term like this is inevitably vague across usage, and fine distinctions often won't be intended. Maybe we could add a sentence about this. Fireplace 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew David Bailey wouldn't be able to leave the irrelevant portions out of this. CovenantD 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant in your and three other's opinions. Not irrelevant in mine or one other's opinion. That is not a consensus. DavidBailey 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon64, the homosexual agenda, and societal change

Anon64 said above at several points that (s)he believes the people who use the term "homosexual agenda" are not necessarily opposed to homosexuality, but are opposed to certain changes in society, if I understood the extensive remarks (but clearer than abbreviated remarks would have been) correctly. Why would someone who is not opposed to homosexuality be concerned if society became more accepting of homosexuality? What kind of society is it which is not accepting of homosexuality, and in which media present only heterosexual messages? Which people have contributed to society being that way and which have a vested interest in keeping it that way which would lead them to being opposed to the changes which are purportedly part of the "homosexual agenda"?--Bhuck 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not making myself very clear I think. I believe that they might indeed not agree with homosexuality, but this in itself does not cause them to imagine a "homosexual agenda" or take an action. It is the activist efforts at changing social values -- the key element that is driving the action and that is defining what people mean by "homosexual agenda". Now to get to your specific question: Why would someone who is not opposed to homosexuality be concerned about society, etc. Answer: Such people, and I do not know that there are many but there have been some notable examples in prior societies, may not be concerned about individual behavior but may be concerned about a society wide change. Among other reasons.. any change is scary to most people and a change of basic values can be threatening. I do not know that you can attach a label to a society which is not accepting of homosexuality and in which media present only heterosexual messages. I am unaware of a label for this. But the people who have a vested interest in that society could be nearly everyone. Fathers, Mothers, Children. They might all want things to stay just the same as they always did, if they were happy. People do not want change if they think things are fine.

sorry for being so long winded previously but when I am sleepy my thoughts run too long. --Anon 64 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I recently bumped into a quote to the effect that, while we do not expect that society be free of murder, we do expect that it be illegal. (The context was an opposition to capital punishment, as it was on an Amnesty International business card.)

Perhaps the same logic follows here. It may be that some people are fine with homosexuality so long as it's closeted and hated, but are afraid of the effect that public acceptance of homosexuality may have.

What effects? I can only speculate, but here's a plausible possibility. Consider that the traditional religious marriage is based on strong sex roles, where the man is the head of the family and the woman is to trust and obey, not lead. This is defended in terms of God's will and the natural order. After all, if a marriage is inherently between a man and a woman, and the man is inherently on top, then it's obvious why the woman can't be an equal, right?

This argument would be disrupted if there were societally sanctioned marriages where both partners are male or both are female. In such marriages, neither partner can dominate on the basis of inherent sex roles, so there is the possibility of equality. And if it's possible for gays, why shouldn't it be possible for straight women? In other words, gay marriage may negatively impact the religious man's ability to justify his dominion over his wife. The homosexual agenda is therefore a threat to headship, though homosexuality in itself is not.

Anyhow, this is just one reasonable explanation, but I hope it illustrates the issue. Al 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What is being illustrated is your projection of a POV upon someone else, then arguing with that position. No need to go into all the Propaganda ramifications of that technique. Suffice it to say that it's an easy, but intellectually dishonest way to advance one's own POVPollinator 03:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said for assuming good faith. In fact, I'd recommend that you try it. You'll find that, since you won't be reacting to quite so many things with hostility, others will treat you more seriously. Until then... Al 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that you assume when someone disagrees with you they are exhibiting bad faith? DavidBailey 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is mostly reasonable and plausible. But, I also think people are not so much concerned about homosexuality being closeted and hated as much as its "Not in my back yard". Similar to siting landfills, nuclear missile silos, etc, people will say, ok we accept that as part of a society but not in my back yard. Some may simply just want gays closeted and hated as you say. But I think most would like to say "live and let live" but ... like religion "dont force it down my throat - and don't change anything about my social structure to fit your ideas of what is right". This, however, is a secondary issue to the article. The article is about the concept of the "Homosexual Agenda" and how that term is used. In this regard, I believe it is used by one set of activists to refer to the plans and goals of the other set of activists. --Anon 64 03:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, the idea is that they accept that it exists, just so long as it's not sanctioned as normal. It is societal sanction that makes homosexuality a threat to the traditional marriage, not homosexuality itself.

I am not 100% sure about your first sentence, but that second sentence seems to be dead on. --Anon 64 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I brought all this up in an attempt to offer some indirect support for your statement as well as perhaps some insight into the thought processes of these people. For our intents, it's just some OR to help us decide what non-OR content to keep.

Oh, and I found the original quote:

"We do not expect to live in a culture where murder does not exist, we do demand that it not be legal." - Albert Camus.

Al 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're comparing people who oppose changing a two-thousand-plus-year tradition of marriage to a person of the opposite sex, not a first cousin, and of the acceptable age of adulthood with a murderer? That's a non-POV view, isn't it! DavidBailey 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow - I see why we have so many problems here. Of all the ways I can read Al's post - I never come out with David's interpretation. Al is drawing a parallel between societies views on homosexuality and the capital punishment debate. Basically the quote says that although we know these things go on, as long as it's not openly approved then society can cope with it. Anon 64 has been saying that a lot of people feel like that about homosexuals and I think he's right about the nimby attitude of some. Sophia 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me express it this way. Al is a pretty smart guy. I'm sure that it hasn't escaped him that by making the comparison, he is comparing a group that he disagrees vehemently with with murderers. I don't think, and never thought, he was drawing a distinct parallel, but such comparisons are clever form of deniable slander. DavidBailey 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm even smarter than that, as I was actually comparing homosexuality with murder. In both cases, it's not something we can ever stamp out, but we do have the option of punishing it and otherwise making it socially unacceptable. I'm saying that, as per Anon 64's comment, there are people who are more opposed to the social acceptability of homosexuality than homosexuality itself, on the basis of the consequences to traditional (read: male-dominated) marriage. Please assume good faith and read a little bit more carefully. Al 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this idea of society being able to absorb it under certain circumstances has an historic parallel. In ancient Rome, Augustus Ceasar was buggering boys and women other than his wife, when he came out in staunch support for what was then labled "Family Values". Clearly not a private supporter of that concept (People in his family were exiled and murdered) he nevertheless thought society needed protections from changes he saw going on and, for example, tried to increase the penalties for the very laws he broke. --Anon 64 13:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

any change is scary to most people and a change of basic values can be threatening. [...T]he people who have a vested interest in [a society which is not accepting of homosexuality and in which media present only heterosexual messages] could be nearly everyone. Fathers, Mothers, Children. They might all want things to stay just the same as they always did, if they were happy. People do not want change if they think things are fine. This is an interesting comment by Anon64 above. What are the basic values inherent in presenting only heterosexual messages? Are the fathers of gay sons happy that their sons are not accepted by society? Are mothers who live in lesbian partnerships and conceived by artificial insemination happy about media presenting only heterosexual messages? Are children who are worried about how to tell their parents that they are gay threatened by change? Sometimes one can think things are fine because one has not been made aware of the problems of others (just because you haven't heard that female genital mutilation occurs in Africa doesn't mean you would think it was good if someone told you about it). --Bhuck 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Positive Note

I know that people are working hard to create a good article. It is difficult because of the tensions involved in the issues. And they are so current. If this were about something 100 years ago it would be easier. However, I would like to add a commendation to everyone for the quality of their thinking and efforts. I would also like to say that I watched the discussion about the section now called: Characterization of the agenda. There were some times when that section was just awful. But people worked on it and it appears to me, to now be dead on, simply by the use of quotes. So I congratulate everyone for that and I know that the whole article will improve in a similar manner. It seems like such a small article for so much work but it is getting to be a good one. And really, it does not need to be a big article. Brevity is a virtue.--Anon 64 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cites Needed

These two statement:

• Groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deny the existence any secret or subversive agenda.
• Mainstream LGBT organizations do not support changing age of consent laws or legalizing polygamy.

Are probably true, but given the good quality of the article to this point, they need to be cited. They stand out as being just assertions. I am not arguing with them -- I do not know for sure, but I would expect them to be true. I'm just saying that they need cites.--Anon 64 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph Versions again

I am just starting a new topic so that it is easier to read.

David Bailey supported the old paragraph so I am including it here.

Old Paragraph

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters[4], who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights.

Current Paragraph

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

New Proposals

(bold is new content)

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used in the U.S. by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

which produces (if I edited correctly):

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used in the U.S. to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

Im not saying the latter is wonderful, but I think it is more accurate.

Looks pretty good, with two changes: First, "the goals of gay rights activists" -> "the goals of the LGBT rights movement". The drive to increase LGBT acceptance is a lot broader than gay activists, and in these contexts "activists" is often used in an "attacking" way. Second, "increase acceptance of homosexuality" -> "increase LGBT acceptance" or "increase acceptance of the LGBT community". Various style guides (e.g., the NY Times style guide) recommend only using "homosexual" over the preferred "gay" in clinical contexts. Fireplace 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As an overseas participant, I would like to leave out the "In the US" in the first sentence. It would be fine to qualify the term later by saying "The term is used most frequently in the United States" or something. But it is certainly not an inherent part of the definition--if a Canadian utters the words "homosexual agenda", (s)he is not misusing the term just because of being north of the 49th parallel.--Bhuck 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to attribute the goals to particular people? What about "... to describe the goal of increasing acceptance of homosexuality through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change."? Or "... to describe public policies, media exposure, and cultural changes that increase the acceptance of homosexuality."?--Bhuck 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the term is commonly used outside the U.S.? Also, I like Bhuck's second suggestion. Combined with mine, that would bring the proposal to:

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used in the U.S. to describe the goal of increasing LGBT acceptance through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

Fireplace 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that seems pretty good. I think its better than my last version. Reads better or something. And I think it retains good accuracy too. If, however, it is not specific to the US (I sort of thought it was, but what do I know?) then that bit about "in the US" should be struck, but otherwise, I think its pretty good! And, perhaps its not a good yard stick, but it is sort of bland ... non-confrontational... which I think is a virtue in an article that has potential to give offense to one side or the other! (I hope that no one feels that their perspective has been ignored or ruined). And again, Congratulations to everyone for working with good intent and with a presumption of good faith. Group Hug ((((( Everyone ))))) --Anon 64 00:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not used in the UK at all as far as I know. We don't have the vocal religious groups that the US does and being gay is an issue for some but in these politically correct times they don't get newspaper or TV time to air their views. Sophia 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I live in the US and don't pretend to be well informed on uses outside it, but using Google, I found a lot of references to the "gay agenda" in the UK web[1], France web[2], and Germany web[3]. Of course, some of this content may be mirrors of US sites, but not all. Since "gay agenda" redirects to this article, this is relevant. As far as the phrase "homosexual agenda"- it is found in the UK web[4], France web[5], and Germany web[6] again. Google, though, is terribly efficient at finding obscure references, so this might not be a good measuring stick. DavidBailey 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you be terribly offended if we packed some of our favorite men of the cloth in crates and sent them across the pond over to you? Al 19:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't look now but your POV is showing. And a general condemning of men of the cloth is probably unfair as well!--Anon 64 00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I only want to send the special ones, like Fred Phelps. We seem to have an excess of that variety, so I was only doing the UK a favor. :-) Al 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the regular editors have had a chance to comment (or choose not to) since the proposal went up, and there were no objections, so I've swapped the new first paragraph in. Fireplace 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but you ignored my references that illustrate that it appears not to be a US-specific term. DavidBailey 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Agenda - the Other Page

I just read "The Homosexual Agenda" referenced in the other Homosexual Agenda article for probably the third time. This time it was kinda scary. There are many instances in history where people, not yet in power, described such things if they should get to power. They spoke openly of the evil things that they would do and people did not take them seriously. When they got to power they then did exactly what they said that they would do. I am thinking of Nazis for one. But also, Julius Cesar, when he was young, was kidnapped by Pirates. They told him they would ransom him for 20 talents of Gold. He laughed at them and said he was worth 50 Talents. He told them that they should have asked for more. He told them it did not matter how much they got, once released he would hunt them down and crucify every single one of them. They laughed and thought it was a joke. He laughed too. He laughed last. When they got the ransom and delivered them up, he immediately pursued them with a small army and navy, he then turned them over to a local ruler for punishment. When that ruler was appearing to go lax, he attacked that ruler's castle and jail, got the prisoners out and crucified every single one of them, just as he had promised. The promise that they did not take seriously because he was joking. There are many other such examples so when you read that screed it is a bit scary. --Anon 64 00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I just took it as satire. Then again, I have a well-developed sense of humor. It's how I cope with God hating me. :-) Al 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The first two times, so did I. Then I read it with a different eye. BTW, if God hates you, you must be a Calvinist. --Blue Tie 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you go back to your first set of eyes, then. And remember that nothing comes between me and my Calvin. Al 05:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, my optometrist tells me that unlike other people my eyes are improving with age. As for God hating you, I am sorry for you on that account. But thats just how it is. If you are a Calvinist there is nothing you can do about it. --Anon 64 12:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is highly inappropriate. If you cannot focus on discussion that is about improving the article, please refrain. Wikipedia is not a chatroom, and we have strict rules about personal attacks that this runs afoul of. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Loyal opposition

Pollinator and David Bailey have views that are out of touch with consensus and incompatible with NPOV, so they are ignoring the agreements we've come to here and engaging in mass reverts. This is not productive so I encourage them to end their edit war and instead accept the consensus, even if they are merely the loyal opposition. Al 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I recently learned that concensus is not exactly the same thing as "Majority Wins". So, I would like to know what Polynator and David Bailey are concerned about. I appreciate everyone listening to me, and I would like to return that favor --Anon 64 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about majority rules, but that all opinions are considered. Al, you have a history of dismissing any views that differ from your own. Besides, you stated that you would not revert, and just have. However, it's late, so I'll post my concerns soon. DavidBailey 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some opinions, once considered, must be dismissed. This is particularly the case when these opinions conflict with non-negotiable rules, such as WP:NPOV. The consensus does not have to be unanimous and we have absolutely no obligation to please all participants. Al 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you were talking to me but I am not Al. Something he is probably grateful for. --Anon 64 03:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New Section

Perhaps to help settle the discussion, I will add a concept for a new section that may fit

Examples of Other Uses of the Term

Though the term "Homosexual Agenda" is predominantly used by external critics such as social conservatives, it is also used in other contexts:

• Appropriation by Gay Rights Activists Bishop Gene Robinson, addressing the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America on 14 June 2006, for example, declared that "Jesus is the homosexual agenda in the Episcopal Church".

• Judicial Reference U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas that the "law-profession culture... has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda".[9] The majority opinion of the Court contained no reference to this term.

• Travel Some Websites promote Gay Friendly establishments in various locations and call this listing a "Gay Agenda" or "Homosexual Agenda".

• Publishing In the 1980's a magazine was published in Denmark called "The Gay Agenda".

• Satire (Put some of the satire examples here)

• Internal Criticism (There are some sites where gays criticize the "Homosexual Agenda").

---

--Anon 64

I don't think this is necessary. First, the "appropriation", "travel", "satire" cases are already discussed and cited in the introduction. I don't think we need to belabor the point. Second, the "judicial" case is a paradigm example of the social conservative use - I don't think it counts as an "other context". I haven't checked on the magazine, but I imagine it's also one of the two. "Internal criticism" is a mix of the original and the appropriating uses... if it's widespread enough, it could be mentioned in the intro. As you said above, this doesn't need to be a long article. Fireplace 05:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not check the links in the first paragraph. I kinda (about 60%) agree with you about the judicial case example. It does not bug me to reject this part of the article but it does not bug me to include it. I thought that perhaps some of the other instances could be brought down here. My main motivation was to have a section that might meet some of David Bailey's concerns. I would not go so far as to say I am advocating it, I would say I am opening it as a suggestion. I have no strong sense of ownership here but we have not heard what David Bailey or Polinators concerns are. --Anon 64 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)