The "Gay Agenda"[W:504] (1 Viewer)

[CLAX1911]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

I think most adults know what homosexual conduct consists of.

Its vague. Most adults assume certain things. But it's nonspecific and meaningless. But enjoy your delusion.

And I don't see what is so noble about removing the opprobrium that has traditionally attached to it.

The criticisms come from backward beliefs and immoral justifications.

Changing tradition for the sake of change clearly isn't a noble cause, either.

I would agree, but that isn't the reason for changing it.

Nothing makes the approval of homosexual acts inherently more valid than the disapproval of those acts as immoral, any more than it is inherently more valid to approve of adult incest, or bestiality, or polygamy than to disapprove of those acts as immoral.

This isn't about acts. So the above is irrelevant.

It's immoral to chastise people for things you can't reason logically that are immoral.

You are welcome to attempt to logically reason that homosexuality is immoral, you would be the first.

Acts that deviate from the norm do not become normal just because a minority insists loudly enough that they are.

Everyone deviates from the norm, meaning the norm is to deviate. Words like "norm" and "deviate" mean nothing without context. I drink root beer, most people don't. I own a truck with a standard transmission and most people don't. So deviating is perfectly moral and acceptable.

So on the grounds that something is a deviation from the norm alone, doesn't logically defend your position. Morality isn't based on majority appeal.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

A person recognizing my right to get married, but then spitting in my face because I'm married to another man, it is still a big ****ing deal to me.

You're darn right that I'm going to make that a moral cause.

Claiming to be a man, married to a man, doesn't make it so. Marriage is, has always been, and will always be, only between a man and a woman.

Mutilating Bruce Jenner, dressing him up in women's underwear, and putting a heavily-Photoshopped picture of him on a magazine cover doesn't make him a woman. He still has XY chromosomes and “boy parts”. And even if het gets those “boy parts” cut off, that still won't make him a woman; just a eunuch.

 

[Unrepresented]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Claiming to be a man, married to a man, doesn't make it so. Marriage is, has always been, and will always be, only between a man and a woman.

Mutilating Bruce Jenner, dressing him up in women's underwear, and putting a heavily-Photoshopped picture of him on a magazine cover doesn't make him a woman. He still has XY chromosomes and “boy parts”.

"I define marriage because I define marriage."

 

[Bob Blaylock]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

"I define marriage because I define marriage."

Marriage is what it is, defined by a higher power than any of us foolish mortals. Neither you nor I have the authority to redefine it.

 

[Koros]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Marriage is what it is, defined by a higher power than any of us foolish mortals. Neither you nor I have the authority to redefine it.

Wow. I'm off of here for along while, but when I get back I see the same posts I saw months ago. Oh, Bob. Don't ever change. You are far too comical. :lamo

 

[AGENT J]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Marriage is what it is, defined by a higher power than any of us foolish mortals. Neither you nor I have the authority to redefine it.

whats that opinion have to do with legal marriage? . . . . . .oh thats right . . . nothing LMAO

 

[CLAX1911]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Claiming to be a man, married to a man, doesn't make it so. Marriage is, has always been, and will always be, only between a man and a woman.

you are welcome to your delusion.

Mutilating Bruce Jenner, dressing him up in women's underwear, and putting a heavily-Photoshopped picture of him on a magazine cover doesn't make him a woman. He still has XY chromosomes and “boy parts”. And even if het gets those “boy parts” cut off, that still won't make him a woman; just a eunuch.

You can hold that opinion.

 

[Rich]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

One mans morality is another's sin. Follow the gulden rule not the yellow brick road.

 

[Unrepresented]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Marriage is what it is, defined by a higher power than any of us foolish mortals. Neither you nor I have the authority to redefine it.

As soon as those higher powers come down here and define it, we're welcome to abide by their wishes, until then their silence is noted.

 

[spud_meister]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Marriage is what it is, defined by a higher power than any of us foolish mortals.

You mean Jews, right?

 

[Koros]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Your primary mistake is to lump all LGBT people, and even just those who are involved with activism, into a single lobby with a single agenda of priorities and proposals. You'll find as much diversity of agenda within gay politics as you will within feminism, anti-racism or just politics in general. Pretending that there is a single agenda is both simplistic and reductionist. LGBT people do not have 'an agenda', it simply doesn't exist and what you cite as the position of LGBT supporters (or, in your inaccurate analysis 'the left', whatever you mean by that) is a ridiculous dualistic and inaccurate way to approach the subject.

I think this is true, and mainly stems from the notion that there is such a thing as an "LGBT" community. Let's be blunt. Threre isn't. Simply speaking as a "G" in that acronym, it makes very little sense to have the "T" be associated with the "LGB."

Gay/Lesbian people have issues we have to deal with. We have legal battles we have to fight. We have social stigmas in many places in the country/world that we have to overcome. Fine.

Trans people have issues they have to deal with. They have legal battles they have to fight (more on a personal than institutional level, however). They have social stigmas in many places in the country/world that they have to overcome. Fine.

But, the LGB and the T issues do not overlap for the most part. Once a trans person has the proper paperwork in place, he/she can legally change what sex they are identified as. At that point, a trans person born male who becomes female will, in the eyes of the law, be no different than a biological female. Should that trans person, after becoming female, identify as a lesbian, then she is more than welcome on the LGB side of the fence.

However, it does a disservice to all in both communities to lump us together as if our issues, our struggles, and our fights are the same. They are not.

 

[chromium]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

somehow i can't take seriously any claim that the nefarious and supernatural "gay agenda" is about extorting above and beyond equal rights, when we haven't even achieved equal rights yet!

and whose fault is that? Almost always the ones bitching about the "gay agenda" are behind the voter ballots and state laws that are STILL (check out alabama or north carolina or indiana) depriving LGBT of basic rights. In other words they don't support the constitutional rights either. We don't win these battles by sitting back and saying their hateful opinion is valid

So they can all **** off and if it bothers you....good!

 

[chromium]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Oh the horrors when gay and lesbian people want to be accepted as normal by society.....

which is exactly what the OP doesn't want to happen

 

[chromium]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

It's an agenda if you want to re-shape societal perceptions in your favour in an orchestrated fashion. Many people can see that the gay agenda exists - that's the issue of the thread.

right, i get a kick out of how for decades the "gay agenda" was about some literal devil jumping out of the bushes to kidnap and rape your kid. Then of course the aim of converting the other 95% to homosexuality, which can easily be done since it's a moral failure

Now the agenda is to convince people homosexuality isn't a moral failure. I guess this is progress?

 

[CLAX1911]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

I think this is true, and mainly stems from the notion that there is such a thing as an "LGBT" community. Let's be blunt. Threre isn't. Simply speaking as a "G" in that acronym, it makes very little sense to have the "T" be associated with the "LGB."

Gay/Lesbian people have issues we have to deal with. We have legal battles we have to fight. We have social stigmas in many places in the country/world that we have to overcome. Fine.

Trans people have issues they have to deal with. They have legal battles they have to fight (more on a personal than institutional level, however). They have social stigmas in many places in the country/world that they have to overcome. Fine.

But, the LGB and the T issues do not overlap for the most part. Once a trans person has the proper paperwork in place, he/she can legally change what sex they are identified as. At that point, a trans person born male who becomes female will, in the eyes of the law, be no different than a biological female. Should that trans person, after becoming female, identify as a lesbian, then she is more than welcome on the LGB side of the fence.

However, it does a disservice to all in both communities to lump us together as if our issues, our struggles, and our fights are the same. They are not.

In Texas you cannot legally change your sex. If your birth certificate says male, that is what you are. There is no way to change it.

 

[matchlight]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Its vague. Most adults assume certain things. But it's nonspecific and meaningless. But enjoy your delusion.

If I use English in as vague, nonspecific, and meaningless a way as Justice Scalia, and suffer from the same delusion he does, I consider myself in good company. Not all of us can have your preternatural gifts.

The criticisms come from backward beliefs and immoral justifications.

That is only your opinion. Many millions of Americans do not agree with it. You flatter yourself that your beliefs are more enlightened and your justifications more moral.

I would agree, but that isn't the reason for changing it.

There is no inherently better reason for removing the opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct than there is for maintaining it.

This isn't about acts. So the above is irrelevant.

Of course conduct is about acts. And what I said is entirely relevant. Nothing obliges anyone to celebrate any sort of sexual behavior as moral or virtuous.

It's immoral to chastise people for things you can't reason logically that are immoral.

So you assert. I do not believe anyone is obligated to present logical reasons for his moral beliefs, any more than for his religious beliefs. For now, at least, this is still a free country.

You are welcome to attempt to logically reason that homosexuality is immoral, you would be the first.

The question does not interest me enough to waste the time. What concerns me is defending the right of any American to view homosexual acts as immoral. For many people, that is a matter of religious teaching, and they do not need to give you or anyone else logical reasons for it.

Everyone deviates from the norm, meaning the norm is to deviate.

That is nothing but gibberish dressed up to sound clever. No amount of linguistic chicanery can convert a deviation from the norm into the norm itself.

So deviating is perfectly moral and acceptable.

It may or may not be, depending on the context. In this country, it is a substantial deviation from the norm to buy a puppy so you can beat it to death and eat it, and in the view of most people, far from a perfectly moral one. And it would hardly be an acceptable deviation from the norm for a judge to appear in court in swim trunks and shower sandals.

So on the grounds that something is a deviation from the norm alone, doesn't logically defend your position. Morality isn't based on majority appeal.

My position is that all Americans have a perfect right to believe homosexual acts are immoral. And they don't need to defend that belief with any logic, or submit to hectoring and bullying by intolerant, self-righteous proponents of the homosexual agenda.

 

[Hard Truth]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Its only part of a broader agenda to make the USA's laws secular, as called for by the first amendment.

 

[Koros]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

In Texas you cannot legally change your sex. If your birth certificate says male, that is what you are. There is no way to change it.

Be that as it may, it doesn't alter my point.

 

[CLAX1911]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Be that as it may, it doesn't alter my point.

That's true.

 

[CLAX1911]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

If I use English in as vague, nonspecific, and meaningless a way as Justice Scalia, and suffer from the same delusion he does, I consider myself in good company. Not all of us can have your preternatural gifts.

You and justice Scalia simply make the same logical fallacy.

That is only your opinion.

Only if you subscribe to the notion of moral relativism. A concept I reject.

Many millions of Americans do not agree with it.

Appeals to majority are illogical.

You flatter yourself that your beliefs are more enlightened and your justifications more moral.

I don't recall mentioning any beliefs or justifications.

There is no inherently better reason for removing the opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct than there is for maintaining it.

Yes there is. Harsh criticism and censure cases people to be criticised and censured. So far you haven't given a logical reason for that censure. You said it's immoral but you have failed to explain how.

Of course conduct is about acts. And what I said is entirely relevant.

Sexuality acts are sex acts regardless of the person or people participating. All people do those acts.

Nothing obliges anyone to celebrate any sort of sexual behavior as moral or virtuous.

who asked you to celebrate it?

So you assert. I do not believe anyone is obligated to present logical reasons for his moral beliefs,

Are your beliefs moral? If not they can't be called moral beliefs. Once again I don't buy into that post modern crap of moral relativism. It means that there are no morals if they are relative to something as fickle as beliefs.

any more than for his religious beliefs.

Religion is amoral.

For now, at least, this is still a free country.

Do you believe it will no longer be free when you have the freedom to choose which sex the person is you marry?

The question does not interest me enough to waste the time.

(Plain English translation-You can't) Fain disinterest to avoid arguments you can't counter, very honest.

What concerns me is defending the right of any American to view homosexual acts as immoral.

Um...nobody is stopping you from viewing imaginary crap. Be my guest. If that is all this is about, the argument is over.

For many people, that is a matter of religious teaching, and they do not need to give you or anyone else logical reasons for it.

Religious teachings are amoral.

That is nothing but gibberish dressed up to sound clever.

I agree, when you talk about normal and deviant it's just opinionated gibberish.

No amount of linguistic chicanery can convert a deviation from the norm into the norm itself.

Deviation isn't immoral because it's a deviation. If what you define as moral is what is normal, you have no morals.

It may or may not be, depending on the context. In this country, it is a substantial deviation from the norm to buy a puppy so you can beat it to death and eat it,

It is also a deviation to own a vehicle with a standard transmission, or to have your hair cut into a Mohawk. Thanks for proving my point. The fact that something is a deviation doesn't mean it's immoral, unless you plan on telling me pressing the clutch pedal condemns me to Hell.

and in the view of most people, far from a perfectly moral one.

Because of the action itself And nothing to do with the fact that it's a deviation, I agree.

And it would hardly be an acceptable deviation from the norm for a judge to appear in court in swim trunks and shower sandals.

We aren't talking about court room decorum.

My position is that all Americans have a perfect right to believe homosexual acts are immoral.

I actually agree with your position 100%.

And they don't need to defend that belief with any logic,

For it to be logical yes they do. People believing illogical flotsam is perfectly okay. There are people that believe in psychics. Nothing wrong with that.

or submit to hectoring and bullying by intolerant, self-righteous proponents of the homosexual agenda.

They don't have to submit. Fight to the death for illogical flotsam, it's your life. I won't stop you and nobody should until your nonsense infringes upon others.

 

[CriticalThought]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

To those who typically warn of a "gay/homosexual agenda": Is this what you mean by the term? The idea of a systematic and wide spread push by government, the media, and/or pockets of society to instill a moral belief throughout our culture?

To those who believe there is no "gay/homosexual agenda": How do you figure? How do you square a notion that it's simply about constitutional rights in relation to other things pushed by the movement/suppoters of the movement that have nothing to do, or tangental at best, to constitutional rights?

By that thought process you could argue the Age of Enlightenment (or as Wiki would describe it, the "era from the 1650s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority" ) is the Gay Agenda. It is the broader culture of liberty and reason that gave birth to this country and the rejection of religious persecution. So yes, I think there is a culture of religious persecution and oppression in the country and an opposing culture of reason and liberation.

 

[CriticalThought]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

I think most adults know what homosexual conduct consists of. And I don't see what is so noble about removing the opprobrium that has traditionally attached to it. Changing tradition for the sake of change clearly isn't a noble cause, either. Nothing makes the approval of homosexual acts inherently more valid than the disapproval of those acts as immoral, any more than it is inherently more valid to approve of adult incest, or bestiality, or polygamy than to disapprove of those acts as immoral. Acts that deviate from the norm do not become normal just because a minority insists loudly enough that they are.

Just thought I might put this here...

A report, titled "Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States," which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives.

Kinda hard to make the whole thing about sex when there are more straight people doing it than there even are gay persons. Don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[CLAX1911]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Just thought I might put this here...

A report, titled "Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States," which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives.

Kinda hard to make the whole thing about sex when there are more straight people doing it than there even are gay persons. Don't let the facts get in your way.

Well he doesn't feel he has to logically defend his beliefs about morals, but feels they should be shared by supreme court justices.

He can't logically defend it because he believes in moral relativism but doesn't want to admit it.

 

[matchlight]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Just thought I might put this here...

A report, titled "Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States," which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives.

Kinda hard to make the whole thing about sex when there are more straight people doing it than there even are gay persons. Don't let the facts get in your way.

If you are making an argument, I have no idea what it is.

 

[joG]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Oh the horrors when gay and lesbian people want to be accepted as normal by society.....

It's when they want more that it gets in the way.