Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Examples of apparently Non-offensive Useage

Oct 7 2005 Gay Peoples Chronicle uses the term Gay Agenda in a headline to discuss gay political activisim. http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories05/october/1007051.htm

July 8 2004 - GayLink Editorial Article commemorating the 25th anniversary of the 1st March on Washington says "Gay Agenda" http://gaylinkcontent.com/storydetail.cfm?storyid=1170

Sexuality and Gender Activism (SaGA) is Carleton University's LGBTQA activism group. They use the term "Gay Agenda" to refer to their plans for upcoming meetings. http://orgs.carleton.edu/saga/agenda.html

The Gay Agenda was a Monthly periodical for gays published at Postbus 10757, 1001 ET Amsterdam, The Netherlands from 1985-88.

A memorial website for Mattachine, says: the American gay movement evidences our leaders' desire to pursue a gay agenda without a sexual revolution. http://www.jtsears.com/mattachinephotoessay.htm

Gay friendly student journalist says: Had they not taken the actions they did, Bush would have continued to ignore the gay agenda and marginalized the issue of equal rights for homosexuals. http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13257&repository=0001_article

I have not found examples of vacationing activities being called Gay Agenda but I could. I hope this puts to rest the notion that there are no contrary examples. It may be an offensive term to some but we often get to choose what we are going to be offended by.64.178.145.150 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll comment tomorrow, as tonight's discussion has left me rather weary. Interesting quotes though. An initial thought, however: There is a difference between using "gay agenda" (or any noun) as a proper noun ("the Gay Agenda") and as a common noun (a "gay agenda"). But some interesting examples there of the proper noun being used by gays. Will say more tomorrow, when I guarantee you this page will be twice as long! David L Rattigan 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your comments. But please note that I was only seeking to respond to the quest for examples. There are probably more, I did not look long. The point really is this: It can be inoffensive. I have never argued that it is not offensive. That would be silly. The word "Potato" can be offensive to some people. So arguing that something is not offensive at least sometimes is a loser. I have never made that suggestion. Only that the offensiveness of this phrase is probably more related to 1) the intentional choice to be offended, 2) the sickening feeling of being attacked or 3) the idea of being lumped in with a group that you may not necessarily agree with. It may also be a propaganda device. I do not think any of these reasons rises to the level of requiring this phrase to be absolutely offensive. And I think in keeping with NPOV, it is simply appropriate to point out that some folks claim it is offensive -- and be done with it! Its not universally offensive. Anyway, at least the argument that there are zero examples has no longer gone unanswered.64.178.145.150 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Without actually looking at any of those links I'll point out that every one of them uses the term "gay" agenda, rather than "homosexual" agenda. I'd also point out that there's a big difference between "A" gay agenda and "THE" gay agenda. Exploding Boy 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually did look at them and they're terrible. They refer to "a" gay agenda instead of "the", such as the meeting-wise agenda of a particular activist group. I must assume good faith so as not to accuse you of being intentionally misleading. However, even if it was entirely unintentional, it's quite misleading. I must reject these out of hand. Al 23:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not look very closely. You are wrong that they all refer to 'a' and not 'the'. Earlier I wrote that I doubted that answering the question someone posed about finding examples of non-offensive use would settle the issue. It is clear that simply showing the plain evidence asked for is still insufficient for some folks. You would think that they have... an agenda!64.178.145.150 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are one or two examples in there of "the gay agenda". David L Rattigan 00:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So are we close to agreeing that some find the term highly offensive, some find it mildly offensive, some are indifferent to it, some find it amusing, and some are trying to make use of it in some way?  ;-) CovenantD 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. There are zero examples of "the homosexual agenda" used in a non-offensive way, and these examples for "a gay agenda" are either irrelevant, misleading or broken. We're not anywhere. Al 00:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well at least there is a concensus now that there is no concensus! That is perhaps an improvement of sorts! However, You are ignoring the examples of "the Gay Agenda" that I presented (do you suppose ignoring them makes them go away?) and the article does not explicitly distinguish between 'a' gay agenda and 'the' gay agenda. I am not sure if either of those things exist in the way I think of them but I'd be curious to know what the difference is relative to the article!64.178.145.150 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Al, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that they aren't good examples. Try to stay NPOV so we can create a balanced article please. DavidBailey 00:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out what's wrong with them. You chose not to address these issues, which is why I must disregard your claims. Thank you for understanding. Al 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

you did not really address them. You dismissed them -- as you said "out of hand" without due consideration. 64.178.145.150 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Two things

Firstly:

"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 homosexual agenda."

Surely it should read "This is a primary reason why many religious social conservatives oppose what they perceive as the homosexual agenda." or some-such? It reads like we're stating there is a homosexual agenda, when of course, that is a matter of opinion.

My second point is that surely the natural law section section should be in "Religion" as opposed to "Legal" (or maybe we need a religion/philosophy section)? As I understand it, "Legal" would primarily refer to positive (or man-made) law, and natural law is more of a philosophical idea. Martin 00:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

These are reasonable changes. Al 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is condescending and POV to refer an "alleged" or "what they perceive as". (IE- see Scare quotes.) I have rewritten the opening paragraph to remove the conspiratorial tones that many pro-gay activitists seem to like to associate with anyone who is opposed to their activities. In your second point, I agree that natural law is more philosophy than law today. Do you think it ought to have its own section? I think its POV to put it in religion. DavidBailey 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC

I tend to agree with you but had this thought -- interesting that BOTH sides see some conspiracy. Some archane cabal. But thats funny because its all so out in the open! None of the actions or opinions of either collection of public interest groups is particularly secret!! Yet they both accuse the other of this. Are both groups on crack? I heard it makes you paranoid!64.178.145.150 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First, why are you writing this down here? Second, you are forgetting that it is in direct violation of WP:NPOV for you to treat unsupported allegations as fact. This is why your work will be reverted in time. Al 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What allegations? What text do you feel is supported? All I've seen you putting into the article is blatant pro-gay bias with an attempt to discredit alternate views. Fortunately, Wikipedia has policies that describe what is appropriate in WP:POV and WP:NPOV. Articles that attempt to foist bias will get edited. DavidBailey 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

DavidBailey, how is using "alleged" or "what they perceive as" POV? As far as I am aware, there has never been any conclusive proof that there is such a thing as a homosexual agenda, and so any reference to one must be attributed to the theory's supporters and not presented as fact by Wikipedia. As for the scare quotes, they have their legitimate uses, as the article even mentions, and unfounded allegations are one instance when an encyclopaedia would do well to employ them.

As for putting natural law into the religion section, how is that POV? Natural law seems to be a theological idea to me. Martin 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have cited examples before that give "conclusive proof". I'm not saying that Pat Robertson's version of the homosexual agenda exists, but there are a great many gay activists who are militant about redefining terms, negating social standards, changing laws, advocating for religious reform, neutralizing opposition figures, etc. I have been experiencing it first-hand trying to keep some articles, including this one, neutrally written. The typical routine is to try to define the term in its most ridiculous form. Then discredit it. Eventually, there are calls for deletion on the basis that the article is hopelessly biased. DavidBailey 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that there are such groups. They operate openly in political circles. However, I also know that there are gays who actually oppose the positions of these groups in many areas -- including gay marriage! So, it would not be really appropriate to say "Gay Agenda" but rather the agenda of certain groups that support "Gay Rights" (the alternative version of the same concept). I have known gays who are patently offended or at least embarassed by the activists so gays have a degree of diversity. Nevertheless, gay activist groups DO imply that they speak for everyone who is gay! That is one of the problems with citing that GLAAD page of offensive words. 64.178.145.150 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And I thought Falun Gong practitioners were blind to their own bias... CovenantD 01:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. (grin) DavidBailey 01:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, why can't we make it clear in the first paragraph that the "Homosexual agenda" refers to the activities of *some* gay people? If I understand this correctly, I think part of the offense caused by the term is that it assumes that all gay people hold the same religious or political views, and so they would argue that a "gay agenda" is as ridiculous as a "straight agenda". Martin 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually had the opening written that way at one point, but the text was lost during edit warring. I'll see if I can reintroduce that meme into the opening. DavidBailey 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Done DavidBailey 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! :) Martin 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just one thing; are the terms "gay rights" and "traditional morality" (in the first paragraph) intended to have quotes around them ("), or did you intend for them to be italicised (two apostrophes)? They are showing up in italics for me. Martin 02:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the double apostrophes to quotes, as I assume that was what was intended. Martin 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they were supposed to be like that. You have to be careful with quotes on controversial topics because people will interpret them as scare quotes, which are a bad thing. Rather condescending. Those double-single quotes are to put the words in italics for emphasis because they are terms. DavidBailey 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. I do think quotes would be the best way to go, but I can see how they could be misconstrued. Martin 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that quotes traditionally are the way to go. Unfortunately, they have been misused in the past by many. As a result, they have become controversial in some cases. Oh well. DavidBailey 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual-friendly is POV

As such, I'm changing it back. CovenantD 00:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

alleged is biased. As such, I'm changing it back. Thanks. DavidBailey 00:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use the term alleged. And pro-homosexual is not biased. It is literally true. The LGBT movement is trying to get changes made that benefit homosexuals. Also, if you want to edit, please don't revert. Edit. DavidBailey 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh good lord, the term itself is biased. But for the record, sorry CovenantD for using the popups tool on you - just installed it today, only used it right once or twice so far. Moulder 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered what that was about. Thanks for explaining. CovenantD 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the term itself shows a bias of a sort. But to claim that the article should not exist is like saying that articles on any controversial topic should not exist. There are some good guidelines at WP:POV that talk about articles that, of necessity, must include particular points of view. The key is not to use the article writer voice to present those perspectives, but to label each perspective so that they can be contrasted by the reader. DavidBailey 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit shows some awareness of balance. Thank you. CovenantD 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to reference a specific version here but I think the current version (01:48, 31 May 2006 ) is a pretty good introduction. (I wish we knew when and how the term was first used though.) It shows balance and neutrality. 64.178.145.150 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you click the history tab, you can click on the date/time stamps and view any iteration of the article. DavidBailey 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! What I meant was that (I think) I have seen people who were able to actually include a link to an old version in the talk page. It is that hotlinking that I am not able to do. But I appreciate your help!64.178.145.150 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the official way to do it, but you could just copy one of those links and put them between single square brackets in the talk page. DavidBailey 02:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the fuss over "alleged". A group of people say there is this thing called "the homosexual agenda". Others deny it exist, and say the concept is a fabrication. How then is it POV to say "alleged"? The word simply acknowledges that it is a debatable concept. DavidBailey, it seems you want to strip "homosexual agenda" of all its connotations, taking the content of the phrase down to its bare minimum and treating it as if it were simply a neutral synonym for "gay rights" - in which case, why does it have its own article? David L Rattigan 07:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite simple. Because "alleged" takes the perspective that such a thing may not exist. However, it is demonstrable that it does exist, within portions of the gay rights activism. It is a term that is used enough, I think any search can prove that, that it deserves its own article. DavidBailey 10:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now about that Alabama ref :-)

I understand that it is pretty much a direct copy of the GLAAD webpage - I'm the one who pointed that out. Upon further thought, I realized that their inclusion of it, copy or not, represents their approval of and agreement with it. As such, it does seem to be a valid reference for that group's perspective. Thoughts? CovenantD 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that statement, but as an encyclopedia, it's not really the place for links to "and I also agree with...", but rather divergent, authoritative sources that show similar concepts. If you want to start a list, that might be appropriate that we could link to from the article. Although the title might get wordy to stay politically correct. (IE- sites that show LGBT movement requested terminology.)  :)

Can someone enlighten me what we're referring to by the "Alabama" ref? Cheers. David L Rattigan 07:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link.[1] DavidBailey 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. In that case, I agree with CovenantD. David L Rattigan 13:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Natural law

A quick read of the reference (stanford.edu) used for natural law finds no mention of a gay agenda or homosexual agenda. In short, the reference doesn't seem to apply to this article at all. Thoughts? CovenantD 03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Its inclusion here seems arbitrary. The article is not about criticisms of homosexuality, per se, but about the term and concept of the "homosexual agenda". David L Rattigan 07:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I originally added this link back when there were calls for complete removal of this article. The point is to show the grounds on which various groups oppose the "homosexual agenda". I don't think that only articles which specifically reference the agenda are relevant. Obviously, this is not the Gay rights opposition page. However, the tendancy of many is to: 1. mock the fact that anyone think such a thing exists. 2. discredit the perspective that there are relevant reasons why someone should be opposed to it. This link addresses issue #2. DavidBailey 10:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you find something more directly relevant? CovenantD 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about these? Pro [2][3] and con [4] DavidBailey 23:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive 3

I have archived off a bunch of stuff from yesterday. You can see previous discussions by clicking on the archive links at the top of the page. As the discussion is moving quite rapidly at times, I have created a few more blank archive links where old stuff can be transferred any time this page gets too full. :¬) David L Rattigan 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: What I'm leaning towards

In light of the discussions of the last 24 hours, I'm leaning towards an opening paragraph beginning something like this:

"The homosexual agenda" is a rhetorical term used mainly by Christian fundamentalists and social conservatives to describe negatively the alleged program and activities of gays, lesbians and the gay rights movement. It is often used pejoratively, and frequently with connotations of subversiveness and threat to society. David L Rattigan 10:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

David, I've explained why this terminology is biased and have tried multiple times to write a more neutral paragraph. Here are my problems with your paragraph. 1. "rhetoric" is used. It is not merely rhetoric. 2. It is used primarily perjoratively. Although some do, others simply use it as shorthand for describing all pro-gay activism. 3. a conspiracy exists. There is no secret about the intensions of the pro- and anti- camps on this, and it's a little silly to continue to promote this idea, regardless of some quotes. DavidBailey 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1) I did ask earlier on for an alternative to "rhetorical", but you declined to provide it. "Rhetorical" isn't a value- or truth-judgment, just an acknowledgement that it is used as a rhetorical device in political debate. 2) As regards how the term is used, we took ages just to come up with a handful of instances of "gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" being used in a context supportive of gay rights - compared to dozens upon dozens of examples of it being used negatively. I don't understand the reluctance to admit that it is a term used primarily negatively by people opposed to gay rights. 3) "Conspiracy" is your term. My terms were "subversive" and "a threat to society", which seems precisely to be what most of the people using this term are claiming - an attempt by gays to subvert traditional morality and a threat to traditional values. David L Rattigan 10:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just yesterday, you were explaining why the etymology of words isn't a good measure of its balance. Frankly, the word rhetoric has often been used to describe bluster and political argument without reason behind it. Using rhetoric makes it sound as though the debate is over something that does not exist. I realize that this is your view, as well as Alienus, CovenantD's. If you want to add a paragraph to explain that view in the heading, please do so, but we're already covering that in the Political section. Just because its use is popular with opposition, doesn't mean that it doesn't get used in valid, non-political, non-rhetorical ways. Using "subversive" and "a threat to society" makes it sound very conspiratorial to me. DavidBailey 11:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "rhetorical" can be used in that way, which is why I asked if you had a better alternative. It shouldn't be any more controversial than "alleged", although you seem to think that implies falsehood, too. "Threat to society" is precisely the kind of language used by tons of the groups using the term "the homosexual agenda". The way you want to define the term appears to be to strip it down to its bare minimum and empty it of all its offensive connotations. That's just misleading - it's a loaded term. I'm looking for examples to convince me otherwise, here, but all the loudest speakers seem to be using it in that heavily loaded way. David L Rattigan 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One of your links is particularly intersting. It takes the position of some here that the term "Homosexual Agenda" is a "Branding Term" "invented" by their enemies and asks -- "What is the Homosexual Agenda? A: Promoting the reality that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It goes on to quote: "I love gay people. I think we're better than other people. I really do. I think we're smarter and more talented and more aware and I do, I do, I totally do. And I think we're more tuned in to what's happening, tuned into the moment, tuned into our emotions, and other people's emotions, and we're better friends." It is interesting in a number of ways and that last quote is just funny. Despite that quote, it might be a good site to link to the article because I think it accurately conveys the sense of how some people feel while at the same time promoting one of the very things that opponents seem to dislike hearing: "nothing wrong with homosexuality". (the site had me chuckling) 64.178.145.150 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a term to convey what you wish to convey without making a statement about the term that isn't universally true. I don't believe that everyone believes that the "homosexual agenda" is a "threat to society". Some might just consider it a nuisance. By using "threat to society" you are making it out to be more dire than many might think, and therefore discrediting the term. I realize that you feel the term is innappropriate and want to show just how ridiculous you think it is. The appropriate way to do this in an encyclopedia article is to quote and link to authoritative sources that cast doubt on it, or refute it in a clear, factual, unbiased way, not to edit the article prose to sound hostile or petty. Also, the loudest speakers are typically not the most thoughtful speakers. DavidBailey 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not like the word Rhetorical but I really wasn't clear on why. I think that this discussion clarified it for me. Simply using the word "term" without an adjective is, to my eye, best. 64.178.145.150 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10