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

[iangb]

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

Here's where perhaps I'll disagree. I don't think it actually sits at #3, largely because I don't believe in the least that it's being treated similar to other "celebrity gossip" or someone with "mastectomy scars". I don't remember many cases of hearing a consorted effort to declare those who have a mastectomy as "heroes". Most celebrity gossip doesn't leave the pages of the Enquiror or some of the more gossip style rags than Time. More so, most celebrity gossip doesn't become a legit news story, nor do I tend to see the same type and focus regarding the the coverage on social media and other places.

A quick Google gave me plenty of Vanity Fair articles about Angelina Jolie and her cancer issues.

I agree though that the way the original story has been treated by some counts as #2. There's also a fair amount of #1 in there as well, although that doesn't remove the fact that #2 also exists.

I agree with you that the reason it's often ridiculed is likely due to a disagreement with some of the implications people make with it as opposed to because the general concept I described doesn't exist. But to me, that's an ends justifies the means type of argument...that it's okay to falsely claim something doesn't exist because people use it's existance in a twisted and erronious way.

I don't know for certain because I can't bring to mind any of the situations you're describing. But I'm not sure the existence of 'a gay agenda' is being denied or ridiculed - instead, what's being denied/ridiculed is the mischaracterisation of 'the gay agenda' as 'forcing The Gay down our children's throats!', or the mischaracterisation of any gay references in public as being 'part of the gay agenda'.

EDIT: case in point: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/222295-lessons-gay-your-kids.html. Although I would hesitate to comment on that particular thread (having read very little of it; I might later) it's certainly the case that simply including references to sexuality in sex ed lessons is #3, but is very often treated as #2.

EDIT2: In fact, I think a lot of the disagreement comes from the two groups seeing the same action as either #2 or #3 respectively, including the final goals of 'the gay agenda'.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

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

But, you forget that the very people lumping them altogether are the very same people that you say have no agenda?

It's not like some crazy conservative came up the idea of LGBT rights, THAT was you folks..

Tim-

Like I said, the terms "LGBT" and "queer" lump them together; the term "gay" does not. The problem is not talking about them as a collective; the problem is not using words according to what they actually mean.

 

[Jerry]

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

The recent issue with Jenner has caused my mind to swirl with a lot of different thoughts.

Me too. Thoughts like "who is Bruce Jenner", and "why can't society hold up true heros, like double-amputee veterans overcoming physical challenges".

 

[Koros]

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

Me too. Thoughts like "who is Bruce Jenner", and "why can't society hold up true heros, like double-amputee veterans overcoming physical challenges".

1) I don't consider Caitlyn Jenner a hero, at all...so, don't assume that what follows is an indication that I do think so.
2) The double-amputee...what physical challenge did he overcome, and what makes him a hero?

 

[Jerry]

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

1) I don't consider Caitlyn Jenner a hero, at all...so, don't assume that what follows is an indication that I do think so.

I don't know who that is, either.

2) The double-amputee...what physical challenge did he overcome, and what makes him a hero?

Noah Galloway, who lost a leg and arm in Iraq, is a proper roll model.

 

[Koros]

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

I don't know who that is, either.


Noah Galloway, who lost a leg and arm in Iraq, is a proper roll model.

Okay, good for him for overcoming things and competing on Dancing with the Stars. That's awesome. And, yes, I would consider him a good role model. But, hero? I don't see it.

 

[matchlight]

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

Had never seen that quote before. That is pretty much saying what I was thinking the meaning, generally, was but said in a much eloquent language than I.

While I imagine Scalia may've been attaching a negative notion to such an idea, the general idea I think is accurate.

I have not seen him attach any negative notion to it. His objection--and mine--is to the undemocratic way the homosexual agenda is usually pursued. It has a self-righteous and intolerant character that is also on display here in this thread. These holy crusaders don't care about the Constitution, or about anyone's rights but their own. Their only concern is to force their strident demands on everyone else. And it's clear several Supreme Court justices, to their discredit, have joined the crusade.

Scalia also said this in Lawrence:

I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress"; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best. (my italics)

 

[CLAX1911]

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

Going back to anda's point about "morals" being subjective, this is why in general I'd say it's more about changing societals morals than necessarily removing immorality.

Well, scratch that. In the minds of those pushing such things, it's an attempt to remove older immorality. In the minds of those opposing such things, it's viewed as an attempt to interject new immorality.

Ultimately, I'd say it's simply an attempt to alter what is considered "moral" within the greater whole of society. It's hoping to change what is currently there. Whether that change is "immoral", or if the current status quo is "immoral", is a subjective notion. But regardless of which way you come down on those two things, a statement of "changing the current perception of morality" would be accurate.

I reject the post modern idea of moral relativism. Morality is objective logical and easily reasoned. One is moral the other is not.

Oh indeed. There is absolutely a segment of the population that has an actively engaged upon agenda to aggressively push that LGBT related things are immoral, abberant, "freakish", etc.

However, pointing out that one side has an agenda doesn't mean the other side doesn't. So I'm not sure what the point of the comment is.

This thread is not about whether or not such an agenda is "bad". It's not about if other movements or groups have agendas. It's about whether or not it is accurate to suggest there is a "gay/homosexual agenda" aimed at not simply securing rights and abilities under the law, but actively attempting to alter the societal and cultural views towards LGBT related things in general in a decidingly positive manner.

The agenda to convert, silence, or destroy homosexuals has been around for one thousand to give thousands years. The agenda for homosexuals to be equal has been around for thirty five years. I don't think "agenda" is the proper word. It's a revolution.

 

[VanceMack]

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

I don't know who that is, either.


Noah Galloway, who lost a leg and arm in Iraq, is a proper roll model.

Frankly...I think Jenner kind of embodies (intentionally or otherwise) the discussion re an 'agenda'. The concept that somehow Bruce now 'Caitlyn' Jenner is "the new normal" (regardless of the intent of the offered soundbite) is beyond ludicrous. Jenner 'looks' exactly like what he is. Specifically...a surgically altered man dressing up like a woman. He still has man hands. He still has a man frame. He still looks very much like a man...except with some parts added, some parts altered, makeup, and female clothing. A believe prior to surgery they would call him a man dressed in drag. Today he is a man, with some surgical alteration, calling himself a woman, still dressed in drag. And Im not even hatin on him. Hell...he wants to be called 'she'...lets call him 'she'. Poor bastard...I'll call him a dolphin if he decides thats what he wants to be next.

Come to think of it...that IS kind of the new 'normal'. Society has become so completely skewed and screwed up with its identity, he probably makes a decent spokesperson. It used to be straight or gay. No its straight, kinda straight, maybe straight, purple penguins (because we cant call boys or girls boys and girls anymore) and...hang on...gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual/nonsexual/transexual/transgendered/queer/questionable/ambiguous (GLBTANTTQQA). Did I miss anyone? Oh yeah...and now on the radar...transabled.

You know...'normal'.

 

[AGENT J]

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

1.)The "failing" is in your comprehension of my OP. It no more lumps "gays all together" then talking about a pro-gun agenda lumps "gun owners all together".

What it does is lump a majority of those within a particular movement together in a broad way. Indeed, my OP was specifically making reference at times to individuals who are not "gay", as to be part of that movement does not hinge on ones sexual orientation.



2.) So the gun rights movement does not have an agenda? The anti-war movement doesn't have an agenda? The tea party doesn't have an agenda? The KKK does not have an agenda? The "1%" movement doesn't have an agenda? Environmentalists don't have an agenda? Your argument is essentially that only people can have agendas, but groups...be they loosely or tightly connected...can't?

1.) well others disagreed too so i guess youll have to be more clear. SO now you are correcting it and saying not all but most of people who support equal rights . . . . well your assumption is still wrong and thats still not the case

theres still not evidence for it though

2.) no in general they dont. im a guns rights person whats my agenda, tell me lol also like i said (in the part you choose not to qoute) that i guess you didnt read, it your meaning is that vague, that open and basically agenda-less, then EVERYBODY has an agenda and saying it is meaningless . . .

here ill qoute myself since you didnt

the bottom line is there is factually no unified agenda any more than thier is a white agenda, black agenda, christian agenda etc etc etc

if there is a gay agenda there is an agenda for everything and pointing that out like it is special or unique or bad or agaisnt other agendas is still just as meaningless

if you disagree simply tell me what the agenda actually is then prove the majority want that, then prove its different than anything else . . . Ill wait . . .
Ive asked this question before and nobody can ever do it

 

[Jerry]

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

Okay, good for him for overcoming things and competing on Dancing with the Stars. That's awesome. And, yes, I would consider him a good role model. But, hero? I don't see it.

But you see a hero in some random dude when he tucks his junk and puts on a dress.

I don't want to life on this world anymore.

 

[Andalublue]

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

'Hero' is a very overused term. What exactly is a hero? Do any or all of the following have to apply before the term is used?

• Someone who has carried out an act of bravery and selflessness?
• Someone who has significantly made life better for others?
• Someone who has achieved something of lasting benefit to mankind?
• Someone who has excelled in their field to the point at which others see them as a reference point?
• Someone who has inspired others to achieve excellence?
• Someone who has served their community or nation above and beyond the call of duty?

I certainly wouldn't use the word to describe Jenner, since I haven't seen much evidence of selflessness thus far. Bravery? Somewhat, but I can think of many trans people who have shown far greater strength of character under far harder circumstances.

As far as LGBT heroes, I can list dozens who have made a greater contribution to our liberation: Magnus Hirschfeld, Allan Horsfall, Harvey Milk, Federico García Lorca, Peter Tatchell, Kasha Nabagesera, Tonette Lopez...the list is long.

 

[Koros]

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

But you see a hero in some random dude when he tucks his junk and puts on a dress.

I don't want to life on this world anymore.

Oh, Jesus, Jerry...learn to read.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/225653-gay-agenda-8.html#post1064690465

 

[Jerry]

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

Oh, Jesus, Jerry...learn to read.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/225653-gay-agenda-8.html#post1064690465

You agreed not to act like a jerk when you made an account. Please keep your word.

 

[CLAX1911]

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

Are you going in circles with your logic?

Point out the circles.

I'm sure those with SC are pleased to hear that.. But seriously, you're kind of forcing yourself to analyze deeper now, lets examine.

This should be funny.

I don't know, what is valuable? Do you have an upside you can demonstrate?

Don't need to. If it is genetic, the genome has kept it around all this time. Evolution First shoot itself in the foot.

No, homosexual behavior exists, heck even my two male dogs display homosexual behavior, but see they can't really talk to me and let me know what's really going on, so excuse me if I take evidenc eof homosexually observed behavior in non humans as really nothing more than wishful thinking.

It isn't wishful, it happens and had been observed. Nice try though.

Why?

Because it is passed down to the next generation.

Sciency words? My assessment is based on objective observations,

No it's actually not. It's based on an emotional bias. And of course a poor understanding of evolution and genetics.

That's the difference here.

I agree but you have the roles reversed.

Science is supposed to follow the facts, but since the causal nature of homosexuality is still yet unknown biologically, what we have is a concerted effort to place psychological (Completely subjective science) evidence as somehow more promising. That seems backwards to me.

That's all in your head. I'm only talking about evolution and the complexities of it you and others who hold your bias routinely whitewash over.

[QUOTE ]Which, again looking at the subject objectively, one cannot deny that even if homosexuality is genetic or biological, it follows that humans and societies for millennia have tried to suppress it, suggesting that the desire and willful need to do so, is also genetic, and biological.[/QUOTE]No the desire to suppress it is strictly emotional. I believe the aversion to it is genetic, but the political attempt to suppress it is emotional.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

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

But you see a hero in some random dude when he tucks his junk and puts on a dress.

I don't want to life on this world anymore.

Your post illustrates why some people consider Jenner a hero. Coming out as trans in the face of people like you is quite brave.

 

[Koros]

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

You agreed not to act like a jerk when you made an account. Please keep your word.

I'll apologize for comment, but only when you first apologize for misrepresenting what I said. I very clearly laid out that I do not consider Jenner (or any trans person) a hero. Yet, you still felt like saying "but you see a hero in some random dude when he tucks a junk and puts on a dress."

You either lied about what I said, didn't remember what I said, or didn't read what I said. So, which is it? Correct yourself, apologize for your mistake, and I will do the same.

 

[Koros]

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

Your post illustrates why some people consider Jenner a hero. Coming out as trans in the face of people like you is quite brave.

Just being brave does not make one a hero.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

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

Just being brave does not make one a hero.

Not to you, but that's why I said "SOME PEOPLE" because everyone has their own definition of "hero".

 

[Jerry]

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

I'll apologize for comment, but only when you first apologize for misrepresenting what I said. I very clearly laid out that I do not consider Jenner (or any trans person) a hero. Yet, you still felt like saying "but you see a hero in some random dude when he tucks a junk and puts on a dress."

You either lied about what I said, didn't remember what I said, or didn't read what I said. So, which is it? Correct yourself, apologize for your mistake, and I will do the same.

I apologize for being on methocarbamol thismorning, my back injury from Afghanistan is flaring up again. Sorry if that made me miss some obscure point in an edit you made. Sorry I obeyed lawful order from President Obama to deploy, where I got the injury. Sorry for joining the service and trying to do something with myself instead of just being a deadbeat, I guess I should have just tucked my junk and put on a white dress. My bad.

 

[Jerry]

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

Frankly...I think Jenner kind of embodies (intentionally or otherwise) the discussion re an 'agenda'. The concept that somehow Bruce now 'Caitlyn' Jenner is "the new normal" (regardless of the intent of the offered soundbite) is beyond ludicrous. Jenner 'looks' exactly like what he is. Specifically...a surgically altered man dressing up like a woman. He still has man hands. He still has a man frame. He still looks very much like a man...except with some parts added, some parts altered, makeup, and female clothing. A believe prior to surgery they would call him a man dressed in drag. Today he is a man, with some surgical alteration, calling himself a woman, still dressed in drag. And Im not even hatin on him. Hell...he wants to be called 'she'...lets call him 'she'. Poor bastard...I'll call him a dolphin if he decides thats what he wants to be next.

Come to think of it...that IS kind of the new 'normal'. Society has become so completely skewed and screwed up with its identity, he probably makes a decent spokesperson. It used to be straight or gay. No its straight, kinda straight, maybe straight, purple penguins (because we cant call boys or girls boys and girls anymore) and...hang on...gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual/nonsexual/transexual/transgendered/queer/questionable/ambiguous (GLBTANTTQQA). Did I miss anyone? Oh yeah...and now on the radar...transabled.

You know...'normal'.

I'm all for transsexuals doing what they need to do in order to lead happy and productive live, and if this person becomes a symbol for others of his/her affliction, great.

I just literally had no idea who this person was before today (haven't don the obligatory google search because I've been catching up on Game of Thrones and shopping for a new revolver....Jenner's a quarterback? I think?) and don't 'get' what all the commotion is about beyond the transgender community.

 

[Koros]

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

I apologize for being on methocarbamol thismorning, my back injury from Afghanistan is flaring up again.

So, a back injury prevents you from reading?

Sorry if that made me miss some obscure point in an edit you made.

I made no edit. I stated things clearly from the start. You just failed to read like an adult.

Sorry I obeyed lawful order from President Obama to deploy, where I got the injury.

Your problem, not mine.

Sorry for joining the service and trying to do something with myself instead of just being a deadbeat

Are you calling me a deadbeat?

I guess I should have just tucked my junk and put on a white dress. My bad.

Go ahead. If that gets you off, I don't care.


Now, care to actually admit you just failed to read and then tried to claim I said something I didn't?

 

[Hicup]

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

Point out the circles.

This should be funny.

If one does not know what something is, how can you know what it is not? Was that funny enough for you?

Don't need to. If it is genetic, the genome has kept it around all this time. Evolution First shoot itself in the foot.

First off, no one knows if it's genetic, in fact I'd say that science is reluctantly starting to realize this now. Secondly, you're the one that brought up a positive outcome for a negative genetic disorder as somehow evidence of evolution working, yeah, YOU do need to show me something positive about homosexuality.

It isn't wishful, it happens and had been observed. Nice try though.

Well, I seem to have a higher bar than you for what constitutes evidence of homosexuality among non human species, since even among humans, sexuality seems awfully fluid and most certainly more complex than most would admit. So, um, well I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

Because it is passed down to the next generation.

Are you being lazy? You're the one mocking my level of education on this subject, yet, this is all you have? You're going to have to work at it a bit more if you expect me to take you seriously.

No it's actually not. It's based on an emotional bias. And of course a poor understanding of evolution and genetics.

Can you be specific here? What am I not understanding, please provide specific examples if you can.

I agree but you have the roles reversed.

No I don't.

That's all in your head. I'm only talking about evolution and the complexities of it you and others who hold your bias routinely whitewash over.

See, I know you're in deep now since you mocked me, but you are displaying a profound lack of understanding of this subject matter. You couldn't carry on a decent discussion of evolution and its complexities if your life depended on it. You're trying hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, but when pressed for specifics, you hide behind rhetoric. Come on man, show me the money.. Google won't save you, I can tell if you actually know a thing or two about evolution and genetics, and you can't hide, so show me.

No the desire to suppress it is strictly emotional.

I think you meant behavioral, since emotions lie well below behavior in terms of executive functions, neurologically. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

I believe the aversion to it is genetic, but the political attempt to suppress it is emotional.

That makes zero sense, and unless you improve upon your responses, you'll have effectively marginalized yourself right out of this discussion. Nice try though.


Tim-

 

[Jerry]

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

So, a back injury prevents you from reading?

Methocarbomal can impair reading comprehension, yes, because it effects judgment and is why one is not allowed to drive or operate heavy machinery (ironic since that's my MOS) while using it. I also lock the gun away when I need to use it, and for the same reason.

So I got it now, you don't think Jenner's a hero, you don't think a disabled vet is a hero, you probably have something to say about Batman, too.

 

[Koros]

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

Not to you, but that's why I said "SOME PEOPLE" because everyone has their own definition of "hero".

It takes bravery to go skydiving. If I do that tomorrow, will I be a hero?