Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

POV

To be quite clear, "homosexual agenda" is to "gay rights" as "nigger" is to "black". You can't find the term used by anyone who supports equality for gays, and it's easy to come up with references to reliable sources that that demonstrate how offensive this term is. Any attempt to hide this is unacceptable. Al 05:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That needs to be expanded in the article, not the introduction. Your intro allows for no other perspective other than it's offensive - it's inherently POV. CovenantD 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Consider "Nigger [...] is a term which can be used in a derogatory way to refer to black people". Note how it avoids burying the lead. It would, in fact, be POV to hide how offensive this term is by moving it to some later paragraph. Al 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a structural difference that you're overlooking - "can be used in a derogoatory way" is much different than "is an offensive term." One allow for the possibility, the other denies any other interpretation. Until the intro has that kind of perspective, it's going to be POV. CovenantD 05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never found a non-derogatory usage of "gay agenda". You won't find those who support gay rights even bringing up the term except to point out how offensive it is. In this way, it's even more offensive than "nigger", which is at least sometimes used in a non-offensive way among blacks.

So, please show me how this term can be used in a non-derogatory way, and then I'll agree with your changes. However, Chooserr's changes are uniformly bad, so I'll be reverting those regardless. Al 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's [1] a pretty humorous one. CovenantD 06:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, making fun of an offensive term, not using it in a non-offensive way. Come on. Al 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It continues to amuse me that various political action groups will take any term used by their opposition to discuss them and continually call it offensive. I see it as an attempt to stifle free speech regarding their group. IE- We will pick only terms that refer to our movement/agenda/group in a favorable light, and if you disagree with us and refer to us by anything else, we will call you racist/homophobe/bigot/sexist/etc/etc/etc. It is definitely POV when even a clinical, neutral term, such as homosexual[2] agenda[3], is said to not be acceptable for the discussion. Sometimes I think some opposition groups wait until an opposition figure uses a particular term, regardless of what it is, then immediately cries foul and starts its campaign to irradicate the term. I think it illustrates the point of the article of those promoting the homosexual agenda redefining words and culture. DavidBailey 12:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "neutral" about the term "homosexual agenda". As Alienus asked, are there any instances of it being used in a non-derogatory/non-critical context? Quoting dictionary definitions to prove that a term is neutral is either naive or disingenuous. Are we denying that words carry emotive content, connotations and suggestions that go beyond dictionary definitions?

Also, by objecting to "homophobia", aren't you crying foul because an opposition group uses a particular term in the discussion? David L Rattigan 13:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You can believe that "homosexual agenda" is POV if you like. Nearly all phrases carry some connotations. However, what words would you use to talk about a political agenda of the LGBT movement? To deny that a political agenda exists within LGBT leadership is what is naive or disingenuous. Also, who's objecting to the term homophobia? I don't care if I get called names. I find that those who call names tend to reveal more of themselves than those who they call names. I do find it humorous that simply by using a phrase that is hardly derogatory, self-descriptive, and widely used will get you tagged. What I was saying is that to object to every term that is used to oppose a cause celebre is hardly constructive to the arguments of the cause. DavidBailey 15:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Homosexual agenda": A POV concept

You only have to look at how the term "homosexual agenda" is used to see it is not a neutral term. It is a phrase coined by the opponents of gay rights and is used derogatorily to criticize homosexuals and attempts at equality between gays and straights. A Google search for "homosexual agenda is" turns up the following results:

• The homosexual agenda is: to destroy the American family.
• The homosexual agenda is an attack on everything our Founding Fathers hoped to give us.
• The Main Goal of the Homosexual Agenda is the criminalization of Christianity.
• Homosexual Agenda is to silence the church.
• The homosexual agenda is more powerful than the Reich.
• The homosexual agenda needs to be stopped.

Those are just the top results (some of which are repeated a few times in the first few hits). How much more evidence do we need that "homosexual agenda" is a conservative political concept rather than a neutral descriptive term?

David L Rattigan 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why do you suppose so many feel that way? Do you think that all of those opinions are completely without merit? That would be enforcing your POV, right? However, using Google algorithm is hardly authoritative. However, to illustate, let's use Google to search for something like "conservative agenda".[4]

• Conservatives want to oppress the poor.
• "Conservatives have no use for such liberal concepts as progress, equality, social justice, or democracy."
• Conservatives are anti-gay
• Conservatives want to have "more conservative federal judges, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and boosting oil exploration in Alaska"
• Communist leaders are wary of conservatives.
• "A key reason is that they feel they can get elected now while news of the sponsorship scandal weakens the Liberals and takes news coverage away from a focus on their hidden agenda."

However, you will note that although many conservatives disagree with many of those memes, there is hardly an outcry to remove the term from all media and public forums. DavidBailey 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The basic concept is inherently POV; that homosexuals and their supporters have a (hidden) agenda, which is hostile to "regular folk". There are no examples of neutral use, only partisan and always anti-gay. Al 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is debatable, therefore your opinion, and therefore POV. DavidBailey 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

DavidBailey wrote: Just out of curiousity, why do you suppose so many feel that way? Do you think that all of those opinions are completely without merit? That would be enforcing your POV, right? You've just admitted that they're all opinions. Isn't that all that I have tried to argue? That the "homosexual agenda" is a POV concept? David L Rattigan 17:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what point David (Bailey) was trying to make. Nothing he's said has in any way suggested that "homosexual agenda" can be used in a neutral manner. It's about as neutral as "Zionist conspiracy". Both of these terms seek to make the opposing view look like a secret cabal out to destroy the world as we know it. It doesn't get any more POV than that. Al 18:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a term the lesbian and gay community find offensive and is widely used to slur their motives. The version Chooserr keeps installing does not make this clear. Al's nigger analogy is a good one and the way that article is handled could give us some ideas on how to sort this one out. Any thoughts? Sophia 08:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the version that I most recently edited. Al 08:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Chooserr continued to edit war (and admits to doing so). In the end, though, his version is unacceptable and I will make sure that it does not remain. Al 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already given my suggestion, which is to word it in a way that allows for the possibility of it being an offensive term without presenting that as the only possible interpretation. CovenantD 16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never said that much of the agenda of the LGBT movement is secret. You and others have said that. And if you are trying to tell me that gays/lesbians aren't trying to change the culture, religious views, laws, and word definitions, I refer you to this discussion and the discussions on many related pages about everything from nuclear family to gay rights not being called gay rights, or anything else that would make sense. LGBT social movements??? When you're not winning the against the opposing views, obfuscate! DavidBailey 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph (and edit war)

Al's version of the intro didn't need to be quite so strong to make the point, but Chooserr's relegation of the point to a later paragraph is misleading. It needs to be made clear in the opening paragraph that this is a term with an underlying concept, both of which are offensive to gays and used almost exclusively by opponents of gay rights to portray gay rights in a sinister light. The intro as it was before gave no indication that it was anything other than a neutral term.

I suggest everyone hold off on editing for a few hours until a bit more discussion has taken place, as this will only turn into an edit war that is bound to end up in one side or the other being banned under the 3 revert rule. David L Rattigan 08:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how my version is misleading it is roughly the third paragraph, before the first header, the first word is a link to GLAAD (which any homosexual or Heterosexual on this page will know about), now it has Nigger in it. Very misleading. Chooserr 08:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

David gives good advice but can I ask that Al's version be the one to stand for the next 24 hours as his is much closer to my (UK) understanding of the term and as Al is from the US his version should be pretty close to NPOV - more so than Chooserr's which relegates the insulting nature of the term to the 3rd paragraph. In the nigger article it is in the first paragraph and I think Chooserr misunderstood my comments about using that article as a style guide rather than just making a list of comparable insults. Sophia 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want some other version, go ahead and change it. Everyone else is doing it. Al 08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[To Chooserr] It is misleading because it fails to mention a crucial point until three paragraphs in. To expand on Al's analogy, it would be like starting an article on the Zionist Conspiracy with, "The Zionist Conspiracy is the name given to the attempt by Jews to take over the world," and then not mentioning until paragraph 3 that it's a theory that most people find racially offensive. It needs to be made clear from the start that this is a debatable political concept used by people who oppose the gay rights movement, and a term that gays and lesbians (and their supporters) find offensive. David L Rattigan 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is that it isn't necessarily a racial term - or more precisely doesn't always have to be. Take the court case section at the bottom. With Alienus' version it seems that the court is going out of their way to offend gays. Chooserr 08:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It was used by the Supreme Court, but so far as I am aware, by no means without controversy. David L Rattigan 08:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but with Alienus' intro it seems that they worked to find a way to offend homosexuals. It is tantamount to saying that the Supreme Court is Racist or Sexual Preferencists as the case may be. Chooserr 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash) Chooserr refers to the "so called homosexual agenda" quote I presume. That is not a ringing endorsement of the term but a turn of phrase most people use to indicate something they do not subscribe to - good o'l weasle words. Sophia 09:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, they did work to find a way to offend homosexuals. They were quite successful, as it is indeed offensive to claim that there there's some secret agenda shared by gays and their allies.

In any case, the SCOTUS didn't use the term, Scalia did, and he's nearly as far right as Roberts. Al 09:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I don't believe that. Because if the term is Equal to Nigger than it would be totally stricken from the books. Also as for Scalia being "far right" I can't agree with you less. Chooserr 09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm being accused of Weasle words? What? Chooserr 09:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not you - the quote! Sophia 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, Any way I've made a few slight edits to the article (including re-adding the section on alternative meaning). I also got rid of the extra []s! I hope it suits everyone. Chooserr 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave it be. Your changes were harmful. First, you make it sound as if a few groups consider it objective, when in fact many people who aren't associated with any such groups are offended by the term. You don't have to be a member of the NAACP to be offended by "nigger". Moreover, you inserted a pretty silly paragraph that's entirely uncited. This is bad. Al 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...and your POV incorectly formated version is the best wikipedia can ask for. Man you are such a saint. Chooserr 09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss any suggested changes here. My mind is wide open. Al 09:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, the one thing about you that ticks me off the most is your persistence in saying "Use the talk" and "wait for a consensus" when you don't. If you set rules for others be prepared to follow them first. Chooserr 09:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So you don't have any suggestions? Fine by me. Al 09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No actually I have plenty, most I put into my version, however you seem intent to suppress a point of view you don't agree with. Its like appealing to those who commit crimes against you for help. Chooserr 09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Chooserr for fixing the links - I should have been more careful. Hopefully we can move on from this version to something everyone feels is NPOV. I should make it clear however that I don't feel the current intro needs much work as it reads pretty fair to me. Sophia 11:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is apparently divisive. I feel pretty unbiased either direction in that I am not gay but I would never use the term "Gay Agenda" in that I do not believe such a thing exists in quite that way. In politics (well, at least around Washington), agenda's are common. They are the slate of initiatives by which an organization is seeking to affect legislation, enforcement or political power. Agendas are never in themselves neutral, but the term is not offensive and is often used by the groups themselves to refer to their priorities. There may be a Republican Agenda, a Democratic Agenda and other agendas, something neither party or other political entities object to or find offensive as a term, though other terms also exist and are also used. (I know this from my time as a lobbyist).

So, with that in mind, there may also be *political organizations* who represent some constituents with an "agenda" (which is a valid term for legislative initiatives) supporting civil rights for gays in certain ways. But these organizations do not necessarily represent all gay perspectives. It would only be technically correct to address that individual organization's agenda. And that organization may also not be composed exclusively of gay members, so would it be right to say that a heterosexual has a "gay agenda"? So, I think the term may be a bit misleading.

But, newspapers, magazine, activists, etc. speak in short cut language rather than spending time in great definitions. The term "Gay Agenda" certainly appears in print and on the lips of people (mostly those who are against "it"). And certainly there is a coalition of organizations that have agendas regarding rights for gays and lesbians that converge to form a unified political voice. This is almost certainly what is meant by the term "Gay Agenda" in some quarters. Having said that, and returning to my original statement: I do not think that there is some Gay Agenda that is ascribed to by Gay people nationwide anymore than I know of a "Homeowners's Agenda", though they too have much in common and political groups that represent them.

Regarding its offensiveness, I think there is always a risk of offending by lumping people together into stereotypes. That does not necessarily make it wrong for us to use stereotypes in making certain decisions and in communication, but doing so carries the risk of being wrong in a particular instance and of offending many people generally. I do not detect that the people who use this term -- and they are almost exclusively in the ranks of those who are opposed to the "Gay Agenda" intend for it to be offensive. However, by the association of that term with the people who oppose their interest along with the steretyping that is associated with it, I can readily see how it is, nonetheless, offensive to at least some people. But, I would not claim to know that it is offensive to many, most, a plurality or a majority and I would NOT in an encyclopedic article, describe it as an indisputable fact that the term is offensive right in the first sentence as the current version does.

I have read through the introductions for the historical versions. To my eye, none have been perfectly neutral but the current version is seriously defective. For example, in the NPOV instructions, it says that we do not open up and say "Hitler was evil" but we let the acts speak to people and let them decide. In the same way, this article should not simply open up saying that this term is offensive -- that is POV pushing and is unsupported. I also note that the current heading discusses "Biblical morality" which is certainly an issue with many of the opponents of gay rights, but there are many who are opposed to gay rights who do not particularly focus on "Biblical" morality, so that term is also not particularly correct.

Instead, I suggest that the opening statement go something like this:

"Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used chiefly by opponents of the gay rights movement when describing efforts by a variety of organizations and interests to revise religious institutions, marriage, and the family through law, culture, and popular media in the direction of increased rights for gays and lesbians.

It is not definitively known who first coined the term, but it is most often used by social conservatives (most noteably by Christian Fundamentalists), especially in the United States.

Some gay and lesbian rights supporters consider the term offensive."

I think that is a fair and neutral opening, short and to the point, covering the full spectum of the concept and probably each statement is supportable with citations.

64.178.145.150 14:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be less biased than either of the two versions we've been seeing so much of lately. CovenantD 14:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading some of the conversation above, I note that while it is "OK" to use "Agenda" for other social reform issues, it is supposedly not OK to use that same terminology in this one instance. I never used it because it seemed clumsy and somewhat incorrect. I could much more easily see a "Gay and Lesbian Alliance Agenda" or something like that, to indicate organizations involved. But I am thinking from a political/lobbyist perspective around the beltway. Agenda is not an evil word there; its a fact of life, taken for granted. Everyone has an agenda! Regarding offensiveness, I was thinking about it some more. Frankly I had not been aware that the term was offensive. I guess that even though our gay friends at GLAAD may find it offensive, I somewhat object to the idea that somehow they are so special a group that they should get a pass on what to me is relatively common useage in political arenas (and this is sort of a political thing). They hate the idea of "special rights" but then they go and make themselves "special". Its weird. On the other hand, its only their enemies that seem to use this term so they probably bristle at hearing it! Does their reaction make it an evil term? Suppose that Social Conservatives bristle and get huffy if they hear the words "Gay Rights". Does THEIR reaction make the term offensive? I suppose to them it does. Should we give that creedence though? 64.178.145.150 15:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a fallacy to argue that a term is neutral or non-offensive simply because of its etymology. Words gain their meaning through the way they are used. "Gay agenda" is used almost exclusively by social conservatives as shorthand for the concept of a sinister takeover of society by a unified gay front, and its usage is derisive. No one has provided counterexamples to show otherwise. David L Rattigan 15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is a fallacy to argue that -- and that is not what I argued. Where do you see me saying it is not offensive? I think you missed the point.

Anyone at any time may take offense at just about any thing. I do not subscribe to the theory that because someone takes offense, I have said something bad, evil or wrong. Suppose for example that I were blocked from Wikipedia for Vandalism. I might "take offense" at that and want my crime to be called "Unauthorized Editorializing" to soften the blow. But it would not change things. (Now before anyone takes "offense" I was not comparing Homosexuality with Vandalism -- I was making a point about taking offense and its implications).

Furthermore, this is not as though the term "Gay Agenda" is calling anyone a name or slurring them. It is simply a term used frequently but not exclusively by their enemies -- and taking away the term would help defang their enemies. Both sides propagandize through rhetoric -- there is ample evidence of that. Rhetorical differences may cause offense but they should not lead to a knee-jerk changing of the language to favor one side! In fact, I believe that if I were gay, I would be slightly more offended that some folks think I am such a limp wristed pansy that I could not defend my ego against someone declaring me to be part of some "Agenda" and that I need protection from such bullying.

Now, as far as counterexamples, there are some. For example, I know (or rather I am pretty sure) that Internationally the term "Gay Agenda" refers to activites for Gays at vacation spots. Its gays who use that term, so clearly they are not insulting themselves. Which is an interesting thought in itself... this topic has a very definite Anglo-American bias, something that NPOV strives to avoid. So this article starts off being contrary to NPOV in its current state.

I also know of other examples, which I shall find. But I do not believe that examples to the contrary will make any difference and I will be wasting my time. Am I wrong? 64.178.145.150 22:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did, but because of the humorous nature it seems to have been completely dismissed.

On a different note, I disagree with the inclusion of the Alabama reference as an example of the term's offensiveness. The entire contents of that page are a direct copy of the GLAAD page that is the first reference. If there's something that is not a direct copy it would shore up the argument quite a bit. CovenantD 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your example was a satirical cartoon entitled, "Attack of the Gay Agenda". How can that possibly be roped in to support the notion that it is a neutral term? David L Rattigan 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said neutral, nor did you limit your request to neutral. It is, however, an example of another view of the term, namely dismissive or, as you phrased it, satirical. The point is that it is not seen exclusively as offensive or derogatory or derisive. CovenantD 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The point of the cartoon was to lampoon the notion of a "gay agenda", which presupposes it is ridiculous or offensive. David L Rattigan 16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm totally in line with it being ridiculous. That's my point - it doesn't have to be offensive to be ridiculous. CovenantD 16:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is quite common to ridicule what is offensive. This doesn't make it any less offensive, though.

For example, I once interrupted someone to ask if the gay agenda included rainbow-colored satellites that shoot mysterious radiation in the form of pink triangles that disrupt all attempts at straight sex. My point was not that I found the term "gay agenda" to be harmless fun, but that I wanted him to unpack its meaning and tell us what that term was intended to imply.

In fact, that person was unable to explain precisely how equal rights for gays will, in his words, "destroy Biblical marriage", as he did not choose to endorse the "gaydiation" theory. He was at something of a loss, actually, which was my intention. Humor can be a weapon. Al 16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article is USA-centred. As far as I am aware the term is not commonly used in the U.K. or elsewhere - could this be made clear? --Eine 22:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this term is used at all outside of the USA. If so, then it makes sense for the article to be USA-centered. On the other hand, if it's used elsewhere, it would be helpful if we had some citations to demonstrate it. I'm ok with the article either way, I just want cites. Al 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So the article should refer to the term being an American one, or a at least typically used whilst referring to American politics. At the moment, that's only implicit and needs clarification. I'd make the edit myself, but I'm just not bold enough given the current high temperatures. --Eine 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I archived off much of this page to Archive 2. David L Rattigan 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: "can be offensive"

I dispute that there is any way in which the term "homosexual agenda" can be used in a non-offensive manner. Moreover, having the opening paragraph read "can be an offensive term" weakens the entire thing and begs the question how it "can be a non-offesive term," which I defy anyone to demonstrate. Exploding Boy 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Very simply, I agree.

This term is intended to offend and mislead. It offends those who support gay rights and misleads everyone else by implying a mythical conspiracy. Al 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What's ironic is that I'm taking that wording directly from a Wiki article that Alienus referenced near the top of this page. CovenantD 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, taking it out of context. The article I referenced is nigger, which recognizes that even the dreaded n-word also has non-offensive uses, such as in colloquial urban slang. In contrast, there is no non-offensive usage for "homosexual agenda". For a good parallel, look at "Zionist conspiracy" and consider whether it can be used non-offensively. In both of these cases, the best you'll be able to manage are examples where the innate offensive is fodder for humor. Al 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Consider "Nigger [...] is a term which can be used in a derogatory way to refer to black people". Note how it avoids burying the lead. It would, in fact, be POV to hide how offensive this term is by moving it to some later paragraph. Al 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already shown how it is not parallel in this manner. Al 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a structural difference that you're overlooking - "can be used in a derogoatory way" is much different than "is an offensive term." One allow for the possibility, the other denies any other interpretation. Until the intro has that kind of perspective, it's going to be POV. CovenantD 05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's different. And, for "homosexual conspiracy", it is correct to say that it is an offensive term, not merely one that can be used in a derogatory way. Thank you for understanding. Al 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a red herring to suddenly throw "homosexual conspiracy" in there when that hasn't been used by anybody at all on this page. CovenantD 17:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I meant to type "homosexual agenda", but I accidently mixed it with "Zionist conspiracy" to get "homosexual conspiracy". What's really funny is how this changed nothing. Al 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is beginning to resemble a No true Scotsman argument. It seems that you are saying that it HAS to be offensive because only those who oppose it are likely to use it. CovenantD 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The term is offensive as it is used almost exclusively by opponents of gay rights as a rhetorical tool to discredit the gay rights movement by associating it with an implicit conspiracy to undermine "family values". I'm sorry that this is not entirely clear to you, but I can't think of any way to further clarify this. Al 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your words pretty much prove my point. Furthermore, "offensive" is a term of perception. In order for offense to happen, there has to be a perception of it on one and/or both sides. That means that those against whom it's used would have to universally find it offensive. You've produced examples that some organizations do, but that doesn't equate to all. For the same reason that the term itself is invalid (there is no universal "homosexual agenda"), it cannot be universally offensiveness. The most you can prove is that some gay organizations say it is. CovenantD 18:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically I don't get your vehemenence. Most gay people I know find the term amusing rather than offensive. An organization like GLAAD, which exists to root out anti-gay defamation, is understandably broad in its definitions. CovenantD 18:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your apparent implication, words do have meaning. Moreover, they have connotations in addition to their denotations. Fundamentally, meaning is attached through usage, and the usage of "homosexual agenda" is such that it offends those who recognize that the gay rights movement is about equality, not the subversion of society. I'm sorry if this is not as clear to you as it is to the rest of us, but we can't stop the world for one person's error. Oh, and as for what most gay people you know think, that'll become relevant the moment they becomes WP:RS.

I think we've debated this to death. I've made my point as clearly as I can, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I recommend you supplement this by agreeing to go along with the consensus here. Al 18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, definitely a no true Scotsman argument.

Of course words have meaning, but not everybody agrees on that implicit meaning. That's the point of this article.

Would Harry Hay count? I knew him the last 10 years of his life.

As far as following consensus, I count 3 in favor of "definitely offensive" to 5 in favor of something that allows for other viewpoints. Of course I've been known to miscount before, so perhaps you could double check that for me. CovenantD 19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am for an introduction that makes the following things clear:

"Homosexual agenda" is a POV term used negatively by those opposed to gay rights. It is viewed as offensive by gays and lesbians and their supporters.

David L Rattigan 21:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You were one of the people that I'd counted as part of the 3.

Your second sentence purports to represent gays and lesbians and their supporters as a cohesive group with a single perspective on this topic. That is not only false, it's unverifiable. CovenantD 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever other differences individual gays and lesbians and their supporters have between them, I think it is safe to assume they are united in being offended by a term that is consistently (and only ever, unless someone has finally found a counterexample) used to portray gays and gay rights in a negative light. David L Rattigan 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of someone using the term to describe politically opposing the views, without using it in a derogatory way.[5] Of course, I'm sure Al will find it insulting and offensive. It seems that anything not pro-gay is to him. DavidBailey 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that Klansmen don't consider "nigger" offensive, either, so David R.'s suggestion is reasonable. Al 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making inflamatory comments, Al. DavidBailey 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not inflamatory at all. I'm pointing out that offensive terms are used by one group to offend another, which means that the former group is not offended by the terms they use. Please assume good faith. Al 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

David, I've made one attempt at implementing your suggestion. What do you think? Al 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We're getting there, I think! David L Rattigan 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that works very nicely. Thank you. CovenantD 21:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the current version, and the one for which we seemed to have reached the greatest consensus:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a rhetorical term used by opponents of gay rights to describe an alleged attempt by gay and lesbian leaders and their supporters to redefine religion, marriage, and the family through law, culture, and popular media so as to shift society's focus away from biblical morality. It is generally considered to be highly offensive by those within the gay rights movement .

I suggest in future edits (and discussion) we improve upon this rather than reverting to the earliest version, which I think almost everyone agrees is inadequate. David L Rattigan 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of moving on... wiki link rhetoric, remove the word rhetoric, add generally used in front of by opponents, add a citation request at the end of the first sentence (of just throw in three or so references as examples).

Reason: Once again, you can't prove that such a statement is true in all cases for the opponents. It works both ways. CovenantD 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

DavidBailey, you seem to be reverting with no regard to this entire discussion thread or the consensus reached. It really is not fair to go in making major changes while a discussion of this nature is still taking place.

No one has been able to find an indisputable occurrence of "homosexual agenda" that is not being used as a rhetorical term to negatively characterize the gay rights movement. Why is there a problem with acknowledging that "homosexual agenda" is a POV term and concept? David L Rattigan 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If the other users involved in this discussion can please confirm that I've not misread this discussion (in assuming that we'd reached some sort of consensus with the above edit), I will revert. David L Rattigan 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this right. You're going to revert all of my edits because you disagree on the removal of one word? DavidBailey 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You replaced the entire opening paragraph, not one word. David L Rattigan 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. I see many more edits than the removal of one word. [6] CovenantD 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware I edited more than one word. You asked me to improve the article. I attempted to do so. You are objecting to the removal of one word. Are you planning to object to all of the other edits as well? If not, please don't revert all of them. If so, why? DavidBailey 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your first edit was a wholesale reversion to a completely different opening paragraph, one which had an entirely different slant to that which we (I think) have agreed here by consensus. David L Rattigan 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, rhetoric has the connotation that it is just a phrase and typically untrue. That is why I object to it. It's biased. I think earlier versions were more neutral in its explanation. DavidBailey 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. If we're going to say "can be considered offensive," then we have to show how and when it "can be considered not offensive," which we're unlikely to be able to. I can envision no scenario in which the term "homosexual agenda" might be used in a neutral or positive way. Exploding Boy 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[To DavidBailey] in that case you should have just changed the word rather than reverting wholesale to an earlier version. What would be a good word to reflect its POV nature other than "rhetorical"? Political? David L Rattigan 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Political is closer to being accurate, but perhaps not completely valid. There are those who oppose gay rights and who use the term to discuss the activities of those who support them. I have heard the term used, both personally, and in media, in a non-derogatory way that discusses this conflict. And it is not always used in a political sense. DavidBailey 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bailey, there's a lot to be said for being bold, but your changes amounted to a wholesale regression away from the consensus and into the dim past of POV-land. Please, don't just ignore all we've worked for. Start with the current version and make small, reasonable changes that we can all agree on. There is room for compromise, but there is no room for rogue elephants. Al 22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions, above. Anybody want to look at them? Maybe get the focus back on improving the compromise version? CovenantD 22:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would look at the history, it was not a revert. It was a step-by-step edit including descriptions of why I edited it. There are inaccuracies and POV wording that I was editing, as well as invalid links. DavidBailey 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, try again [7] CovenantD 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, if you prefer the long format, [8] [9] CovenantD 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Any changes you make against consensus will eventually be reverted. I don't really care if this article is a mess in the meantime; it's the end that matters. I suggest that you stop trying to alter the article and come join us here. Al 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is no concensus. I do not like the current version but it is better than one you reverted previously. You should stop reverting.64.178.145.150 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you are mistaken. No matter what anyone says, WP:NPOV is an absolute rule and will not be ignored. Al 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now DavidBailey is just obfuscating with his major revert followed by several small changes, then demanding that every one be justified. This is NOT operating in good faith. CovenantD 23:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that and please request that DavidBailey make no further changes but join the conversation here. It is unfair to make a string of changes when others such as myself are very patiently holding off making edits and trying to hash out the issues here in the discussion thread. David L Rattigan 23:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now DavidBailey is just obfuscating with his major revert followed by several small changes, then demanding that every one be justified. This is NOT operating in good faith. CovenantD 23:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue. I did not revert. I made several smaller edits explaining each one. If you disagree with an edit, please explain why. You wanted to follow the process of editing and discussion. I did so. Now you claim I am still reverting. I am not. If you dismiss my edits with a mass revert, you are doing what you claim to be trying to stop. DavidBailey 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clear that you're making stealth reverts. It doesn't particularly matter whether you deny it. What matters is that you will still get blocked for violating WP:3RR. Al 23:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that I have violated WP:3RR, please submit a report. However, you will find that I have not been reverting. I have been editing, and certainly not stealthy, since I am announcing them both in the history and here. You are disagreeing with my edits, and you are trying to make me go away. It won't work. I was editing this article before you came along, and I will continue to work to make it balanced and fair. DavidBailey 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep denying it when there's ample proof that you did in fact revert? [10] [11] It's this dishonesty that is hampering any ability to move forward. CovenantD 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You can continue to show the links, but I am telling the truth. Look at the history. I did not revert. I did not copy and paste. I went to the edit page and made a series of minor and "major" edits. I described each one. DavidBailey 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

David, you yourself used the abbreviation rv when you described the edits...! David L Rattigan 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the first time. Then you said, "rv - please read the conversation from today - this version is the nearest we have got to a consensus - please improve on it rather than revert to earlier version" . So I responded, "Okay. Here goes.... It's not rhetoric." and made a series of non-revert edits. DavidBailey 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this if not a revert? You changed the entire paragraph back to an older version with a completely different slant and wording. A rose by any other name... David L Rattigan 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That, my friend, was accidental. I must have clicked the wrong link to edit, or perhaps I clicked the middle button (I'm using Linux, which pastes the clipboard) inadvertantly. However, I see that CovenantD has decided to revert my entire efforts of the past hour, so what's the point? DavidBailey 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I'll assume good faith, so I'll accept your claim that one of your reverts was inadvertant. As for what the point is of editing against the consensus? None. That's why you shouldn't do it. Come join us in discussion, not edit-warring. Please. Al 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bailey, your recent changes are likewise in violation of WP:POV and our consensus. In due time, they will invariably be reverted. I recommend that you first discuss proposed changes here to see if there is a consensus in support of them, instead of directly editing the article. Remember, it's much easier for us to revert away your bad changes than for you to make them. Al 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits that are made to fix bias and to improve an article are always acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. If you have a problem with my edit, I'd appreciate you discuss it rather than reverting wholesale. Unlike some, I am trying to improve the balance and content of the article, instead of skewing it to a pro/con view. DavidBailey 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever your intent, the end result of your edits to to add bias to the article, so I will revert that bias in accordance with the consensus that you seem not to care much about. This is not a threat, it is an explanation so that you're not surprised or offended. Al 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Please don't take it personally when I revert your revert. DavidBailey 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda items?

Presumably the homosexual agenda looks something like this:

1. Approval of minutes of last meeting
2. Management report
3. Any other business
4. Next meeting date

-- Karada 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a bit of light relief! :¬D David L Rattigan 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10