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

[Fiddytree]

The "Gay Agenda"

There is a gay agenda, as there is largely an agenda for every pocket of American life, be it based on a particular vocation or a lifestyle.

There's going to be exaggerations from every movement which will be harmful to the movement. That being said, the overwhelming majority of the work is innocuous.

The particular rejection of the term largely comes from reacting toward the "secret" or "smoked filled room" rhetoric about the agenda. It's hardly so evil.

The so-called gay agenda tends to fall on two broad fronts, each with various adherents.

1) De Jure equality. This group stresses equal protection under the law and the ability to engage in activities ordinarily protected for ordinary citizens. This class of people may require specific legal protections and remedies due to violation of civil rights. Presumed possible side-benefit of altering social perceptions of this group. But social acceptance may not be of the biggest concern, as they may simply want to pursue their own lives and happiness.

2) De facto equality. This stresses the need to redress social inequalities by redefining social perception of these persons directly instead of hoping de Jure treatments will work. Acceptance and diversity tend to be the most sought values.

If you notice, this is nothing particularly new. Since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, the African American community was divided in terms of what the accomplishments could be or ought to be. Most of the time, African Americans thought you could address social inequalities by simply going after the discriminatory legal structures at work.

The "gay agenda"'s broad ideas of increasing social acceptance of who they are isn't some evil plot. Defining it as an evil plot is merely the attempt of the oppressors to get permission to keep oppressing other peoples. What gay people want is largely what other people want: not to be punished or demonized for being who they are. Is that so damning?

 

[Koros]

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

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.

Batman is fictional, so I don't care much. And, no, I don't consider a disabled vet a hero just for being disabled, nor for just being a vet. Now, if he has truly done something heroic, I'll reconsider.

 

[Hicup]

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.

or, demonstrating the subjective nature of morality here, one might say that he was a coward for keeping it a secret for so long. See how that works?

Tim-

 

[AGENT J]

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

maybe in the next 100 posts somebody will be able to tell us what it factually is, who is the majority that support it and how its magically different than anything else . . .

 

[Hicup]

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

maybe in the next 100 posts somebody will be able to tell us what it factually is, who is the majority that support it and how its magically different than anything else . . .

What, what is?

 

[AGENT J]

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

What, what is?

The "Gay Agenda" :lamoLMAO

ANYBODY out that believes its real PLEASE factually tell us what it is, who are the majority that support it and if it does exist how it would be different than anything else white, black, american, woman, christian etc agendas

 

[Hicup]

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

The "Gay Agenda" :lamoLMAO

ANYBODY out that believes its real PLEASE factually tell us what it is, who are the majority that support it and if it does exist how it would be different than anything else white, black, american, woman, christian etc agendas

Well for gays this one works about as well as any other.

It's personal

GLAAD rewrites the script for LGBT acceptance. As a dynamic media force, GLAAD tackles tough issues to shape the narrative and provoke dialogue that leads to cultural change. GLAAD protects all that has been accomplished and creates a world where everyone can live the life they love.

Now, this is a perfect example of just how words are used to profess benevolent innocence when in reality, GLAAD has been the leading force, perhaps even the very first organization to use rhetoric and intimidation as their main "dynamic" in shaping the narrative. They have no interest whatsoever in provoking meaningful dialogue that offers alternative viewpoints from their stated goal. Nor do they have it in mind to create a world in which everyone, even those that disagree on moral grounds, can "live the life they love", when living that life would mean interacting with militant gays hell bent on forcing them to cater to their (In their minds) immoral behaviors.

Does that about wrap it up for ya, AgentJ?

Tim-

 

[Zyphlin]

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

Well, since this post actually responded in a normal fashion, I'll comment on the interesting parts of it.

PLEASE factually

First immediete problem and dishonest part on your end. No one is claming there's a literal written down agenda list of items. Unfortunately, this is you refusing to take into account context in determining what is being said but instead decide to simply view everything through the prism of your own prejudice towards those that say anything that mildly goes against your world view.

While one definition of agenda does speak of a literal list of things to be done or considered, the other definition...that is clearly contextually being referneced through the word...is an underlying ideological plan or program. Such a thing is rarely written down, nor in almost any cases do people tend to demand such a thing when they use the word. Indeed, the actual example Merriam Webster uses for the word is "political agenda", something referencing not a literal list but a more generlaized notion.

The notion of an "agenda" is of course a subjective one. Since no one is claiming there's any kind of literal written down list, demanding something "factual" in that matter is irrelevant and simply a misdirection. Rather, it's basically asking if there's enough evidence to suggest that there is an ideological direction towards a particular goal. If you feel there's enough evidence to counter such a notion, or you feel that the arguments presented are unsound, please offer up a counter. But your routine of "FACT FACT FACT" doesn't really work in this instance save for the non-sensical fantasy world you've created in which there's some tangible "factual" listed out agenda...a fantasy world no one in this thread is operating in except for yourself.

As such, I will respond to your post in a way that ignores the laughable misdirection you started it out from and instead actual it in a realistic sense. (continue to post 2)

 

[Zyphlin]

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

tell us what it is

I said this in my OP and repeated the general idea throughout. The agenda is two fold. One part is the push for those within the LGBT to have their legal/constitutional rights as they see them recognized and protected. The second part is the push for a societal/cultural change in terms of how LGBT people/issues are viewed in terms of the notions of normality, acceptance, or morality.

Or as articulated by a number of other posters.

I would say that there is an "agenda" in the sense that many/most gay people want equal rights and to be accepted by society. Many of them also want to do eliminate the notion that their relationships and sex lives are "immoral" and "perverse" since those ideas are the very basis for discrimination against them and for other problems straight people cause them.

The agenda is wanting society to no longer inaccurately portray and treat them as abnormal.

It's actually an attempt to remove older immorality.

I think that if your goal is overall equality of opportunity then that has to include societal views as well as legal options - and furthermore, if there is a prevailing opinion 'against' LGBT+ then the only way to achieve parity is to provide an alternative narrative 'for' LGBT+.

The so-called gay agenda tends to fall on two broad fronts, each with various adherents.

1) De Jure equality. This group stresses equal protection under the law and the ability to engage in activities ordinarily protected for ordinary citizens. This class of people may require specific legal protections and remedies due to violation of civil rights. Presumed possible side-benefit of altering social perceptions of this group. But social acceptance may not be of the biggest concern, as they may simply want to pursue their own lives and happiness.

2) De facto equality. This stresses the need to redress social inequalities by redefining social perception of these persons directly instead of hoping de Jure treatments will work. Acceptance and diversity tend to be the most sought values.

who are the majority that support it

Those who support it are those who are actively promoting, advocating, or encouraging both greater legal protection of rights for LGBT persons as well as a societal/cultural shift towards accepting such actions/peoples as "normal", "moral", "mainstream", "acceptable", etc.

I would suggest that, at least in part, such a group encompasses the vast maojrity of the "LGBT Community" and it's supporters.

and if it does exist how it would be different than anything else white, black, american, woman, christian etc agendas

Entirely irrelevant to this thread, as this thread is in no way, shape, or form asking whether or not it's a good/bad thing, or that it's a unique thing. Rather, it's simply simply posing the questions of:

1. Whether or not others think it exists
2. If they think it exists, how do individuals define it (specifically, as it related to how I defined it in the OP)
3. If they don't think it exists, why don't you.

Pointing out that other groups also have an agenda in no way disproves the notion of an agenda in this case. So bringing it up is nothing but a distraction and a poor one at that, unless one is doing it as a means of suggesting that NO group is capable of having an agenda and thus you're listing others to suggest that point.

 

[CLAX1911]

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

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





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.



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.




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.






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





No I don't.




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.






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?




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-

Whether homosexuality is genetic or not isn't really what I was talking about. Way to miss the point.

I was simply pointing out how something that seems to be a genetic detriment also in puerile not negatively effected is a genetic adaptation. Pointing out how your reasoning is flawed.

Sickle cell anemia is a genetic defect, but it's a rare side effect of a superior adaptation, immunity to malaria. That is a fact. I don't think it harms evolution if people die of complications in their 40s from complications of sickle cell anemia.

I didn't mock you I simply stated you don't understand.

As far as your claim that my logic is circular, it's nonsense. I have a firm grasp on morality, it's rather simple. It only changes from time to time because we learn and grow. I don't buy into that moral relativist post modern bull****.

 

[Zyphlin]

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

As a random aside...neat. I never knew Sickle Cell Anemia was a side effect of immunity to Malaria.

 

[VanceMack]

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

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.

Jenner is a Gold Winning decathlete from the Olympics back in I think the 1972 Olympic games. His only claim to fame is that he married into the Kardashians. Frankly...I think thats what ****ed with his head.

 

[logansrun]

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

1. Whether or not others think it exists
2. If they think it exists, how do individuals define it (specifically, as it related to how I defined it in the OP)
3. If they don't think it exists, why don't you.

For some people, "Agenda" has negative connotations like there is some sort of secret plan to dupe other people. I believe that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals want to be accepted at law and in society, and I agree with that desire. The T's are a little different to me than the other 3 in the same way that many G's & L's do not believe that B's really exist. To me, the GLB's are, for whatever reason, being punished for something they have no control over--their sexual desires. The T's do not operate in that same sphere in my opinion so I think of them differently.

 

[Paschendale]

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

I said this in my OP and repeated the general idea throughout. The agenda is two fold. One part is the push for those within the LGBT to have their legal/constitutional rights as they see them recognized and protected. The second part is the push for a societal/cultural change in terms of how LGBT people/issues are viewed in terms of the notions of normality, acceptance, or morality.

Those who support it are those who are actively promoting, advocating, or encouraging both greater legal protection of rights for LGBT persons as well as a societal/cultural shift towards accepting such actions/peoples as "normal", "moral", "mainstream", "acceptable", etc.

I would suggest that, at least in part, such a group encompasses the vast maojrity of the "LGBT Community" and it's supporters.

Entirely irrelevant to this thread, as this thread is in no way, shape, or form asking whether or not it's a good/bad thing, or that it's a unique thing. Rather, it's simply simply posing the questions of:

1. Whether or not others think it exists
2. If they think it exists, how do individuals define it (specifically, as it related to how I defined it in the OP)
3. If they don't think it exists, why don't you.

Pointing out that other groups also have an agenda in no way disproves the notion of an agenda in this case. So bringing it up is nothing but a distraction and a poor one at that, unless one is doing it as a means of suggesting that NO group is capable of having an agenda and thus you're listing others to suggest that point.

The use of the word "agenda" definitely suggests that there is something nefarious at work. I seriously doubt that you would use the term to describe a business attempting to sell more of its products. There's no Sears agenda, is there? There are goals that the gay community are pursuing, but calling that an "agenda" rather than a "goal" or calling it "correcting past wrongs" definitely speaks to how one views it.

 

[Fiddytree]

The "Gay Agenda"

The use of the word "agenda" definitely suggests that there is something nefarious at work. I seriously doubt that you would use the term to describe a business attempting to sell more of its products. There's no Sears agenda, is there? There are goals that the gay community are pursuing, but calling that an "agenda" rather than a "goal" or calling it "correcting past wrongs" definitely speaks to how one views it.

Most often, yes. I still use it however in a manner that follows the word "movement". I myself still say it in a political/bureaucratic manner rather than a strict judgment call.

 

[AGENT J]

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

Well for gays this one works about as well as any other.



Now, this is a perfect example of just how words are used to profess benevolent innocence when in reality, GLAAD has been the leading force, perhaps even the very first organization to use rhetoric and intimidation as their main "dynamic" in shaping the narrative. They have no interest whatsoever in provoking meaningful dialogue that offers alternative viewpoints from their stated goal. Nor do they have it in mind to create a world in which everyone, even those that disagree on moral grounds, can "live the life they love", when living that life would mean interacting with militant gays hell bent on forcing them to cater to their (In their minds) immoral behaviors.

Does that about wrap it up for ya, AgentJ?

Tim-

nope thats another complete and 100% failure . . . that does nothing at all LMAO
thats just a blurb and then your meaningless subjective opinion about the blurb
what about all the gays and people that support equal rights that doesnt cover?

maybe you didnt understand the question
ill break it down for you to make it easier . . . .

PLEASE factually tell us what it (the gay agenda) is
who are the majority that support it (the gay agenda and proof its a majority)
and if it does exist how it would be different than anything else white, black, american, woman, christian etc agendas

let us know, thanks!

 

[Fiddytree]

The "Gay Agenda"

nope thats another complete and 100% failure . . . that does nothing at all LMAO
thats just a blurb and then your meaningless subjective opinion about the blurb
what about all the gays and people that support equal rights that doesnt cover?

maybe you didnt understand the question
ill break it down for you to make it easier . . . .

LEASE factually tell us what it (the gay agenda) is
who are the majority that support it (the gay agenda and proof its a majority)
and if it does exist how it would be different than anything else white, black, american, woman, christian etc agendas

let us know, thanks!

You know, repeating the words "fact" and "factually" more often doesn't make your presupposition any more true.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

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

or, demonstrating the subjective nature of morality here, one might say that he was a coward for keeping it a secret for so long. See how that works?

Tim-

Like I said, people have different ideas of what make a hero. Some people consider him a hero, other people - as you show - may consider him a coward and so on. You just restated my point.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

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

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

To people who define heroism as bravery, I suspect you would be. :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

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

Well, since this post actually responded in a normal fashion, I'll comment on the interesting parts of it.
1.)First immediete problem and dishonest part on your end. No one is claming there's a literal written down agenda list of items. Unfortunately, this is you refusing to take into account context in determining what is being said but instead decide to simply view everything through the prism of your own prejudice towards those that say anything that mildly goes against your world view.

2.)While one definition of agenda does speak of a literal list of things to be done or considered, the other definition...that is clearly contextually being referneced through the word...is an underlying ideological plan or program. Such a thing is rarely written down, nor in almost any cases do people tend to demand such a thing when they use the word. Indeed, the actual example Merriam Webster uses for the word is "political agenda", something referencing not a literal list but a more generlaized notion.

3.) The notion of an "agenda" is of course a subjective one. Since no one is claiming there's any kind of literal written down list, demanding something "factual" in that matter is irrelevant and simply a misdirection. Rather, it's basically asking if there's enough evidence to suggest that there is an ideological direction towards a particular goal. If you feel there's enough evidence to counter such a notion, or you feel that the arguments presented are unsound, please offer up a counter. But your routine of "FACT FACT FACT" doesn't really work in this instance save for the non-sensical fantasy world you've created in which there's some tangible "factual" listed out agenda...a fantasy world no one in this thread is operating in except for yourself.

4.)As such, I will respond to your post in a way that ignores the laughable misdirection you started it out from and instead actual it in a realistic sense. (continue to post 2)

1.) so its dishonest to ask for a description of what a person claims exists? yeah pure dishonesty on my part <sarcasm> oh please
your dodge and deflection is noted, let me know when you can explain the thing that is claimed to exist . . .you know . . without actually explaining it . .
inventing thing in your head that simply are factually not true instead of owning up to the question doesnt make the question disappear. I expect since you know it can't be answered youll continue to do more of the same while claiming its dishonest to want to know what it is . . awesome lol

2.) so basically you can't tell us what it is, it just is . . gotcha

3.) wow this is just another way to say you cant explain or show what you are claiming to exist but your word must be taken from it . .. sounds like a religious/God argument

4.) translation you cant provide any real proof of your claim so you will continue to deflect . . got it, thats blatantly obvious now and makes the my earlier analogy spot on
I will continue on to number 2 will no real proof will be provided im sure, just guessing and pushing subjective opinions as facts when theres no real support for it

 

[Zyphlin]

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

For some people, "Agenda" has negative connotations like there is some sort of secret plan to dupe other people.

I agree that some people subscribe a negative ocnnotation to the use of the word/prhase...with some of those people being the ones hearing it and others being the ones saying it.

However, the word/phrase is not inherently negative. And as I've said earlier, if the issue is the negative connotation then those connotations and the insinuations that come with it should be addrssed and can be addressed without simply suggesting the overall notion is somehow false.

The use of the word "agenda" definitely suggests that there is something nefarious at work.

No, it doesn't. YOU may be ascribing a nefarious implication onto the word, and others MAY state it in a way to suggest nefarious action, but the word does not inherently suggest anything "nefarious" is at work. While I absolutely acknowledge many who use the term are likely using it with a negative intent, it does not mean any use of it must be negative in nature. Additionally, I don't believe the negativity is aimed at an "agenda" but rather at the disagreement with said "agenda". IE, they feel the "gay agenda" is bad not because it's an agenda, but because of what they believe the "agenda" is attempting.

Now you're right, I don't normally think of it in terms of a business, but that's probably more to do with the fact that I far more often think of the word in relation to ideology, specifically political, which really isn't something that deals with a businesses practices or goals most of the time.

 

[Zyphlin]

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

Like I said, people have different ideas of what make a hero. Some people consider him a hero, other people - as you show - may consider him a coward and so on. You just restated my point.

Yep. Kind of goes back to my initial point to a certain degree. Who is a hero and who isn't is largely a subjective notion. The definition of "hero" and who the term is applied to is largely a matter of society's views on such things. It's for that reason that an effort such as this...to depict and declare Jenner as a "hero"...is actually worthwhile to those hoping to affect societal change. If enough people begin to view someone like him as a "hero" as opposed to a "freak" then it is affecting a change on the cultural norms of the society and how it views such things. It there was some magical light over everyones head that blinked on whenever one became a "hero" such attempts would be futile...but it is because the term is such a mutable notion that endevours such as this are even possible.

In the war debates people will routinely throw out the notion of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The same theory is somewhat in play here. It's a matter of perception. And in regards to this, there's a concerted effort to turn the perception in a direction that depicts someone like Jenner as a Hero and normal as opposed to a "freak" or deviant. Whether that's "good" or "bad" is ultimatley a judgement decision each individual has to make and from my OP it's not been my intent to deal with that notion in this thread, but rather simply to highlight that such a battle for the collective societal view does exist and is part of the overall goal of said movement.

 

[AGENT J]

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

1.)I said this in my OP and repeated the general idea throughout. The agenda is two fold. One part is the push for those within the LGBT to have their legal/constitutional rights as they see them recognized and protected.
2.) The second part is the push for a societal/cultural change in terms of how LGBT people/issues are viewed in terms of the notions of normality, acceptance, or morality.

3.) those who support it are those who are actively promoting, advocating, or encouraging both greater legal protection of rights for LGBT persons as well as a societal/cultural shift towards accepting such actions/peoples as "normal", "moral", "mainstream", "acceptable", etc.
4.) I would suggest that, at least in part, such a group encompasses the vast maojrity of the "LGBT Community" and it's supporters.

5.)Entirely irrelevant to this thread, as this thread is in no way, shape, or form asking whether or not it's a good/bad thing, or that it's a unique thing. Rather, it's simply simply posing the questions of:

1. Whether or not others think it exists
2. If they think it exists, how do individuals define it (specifically, as it related to how I defined it in the OP)
3. If they don't think it exists, why don't you.

Pointing out that other groups also have an agenda in no way disproves the notion of an agenda in this case. So bringing it up is nothing but a distraction and a poor one at that, unless one is doing it as a means of suggesting that NO group is capable of having an agenda and thus you're listing others to suggest that point.

1.) so the agenda is for equal rights? well thats the majority of AMERICAS agenda and not a gay agenda
2.) this is where your guessing comes in, this is also where everything falls apart. The first unwinding of the thread is theres no proof majority want this or share these goals the second unwinding which removes all that is left on the spool is id have to ask again how that is different than everybodys wants?

when you can show its tha majority like you claimed and they agree and then when you can show thats somehow different or note worthy youll have somethign . . untll then the thread is off the spool.

3.) this doesnt answer the question, who are they . . . you claimed majority, identify them . . . I want equal rights along with most americans . . . i couldnt cares less what people "accept" or about thier "feelings"

today in 2015 many many people dont accept women and minorities are equals . . . .fine by me, thier choice I dont want anything to try and change them . . .i only care about equal rights and those equal rights are for us all . . sooo again . . . who is this majority, who is they

4.) and your suggestion would need proof

5.) says you, how convenient but you are simply wrong . . . it is relevant because it if just like every other agenda then its not really note worthy or needs to be called the gay agenda

I support equal rights . . period . . those equal rights include everybody even gays . . . so labeling that as gay agenda is very inane

so again let me know when you can actually answer the questions of what it is, who are the majority that support it and why its different than most agendas of rights . . . thanks

 

[AGENT J]

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

You know, repeating the words "fact" and "factually" more often doesn't make your presupposition any more true.

I agree, weird i didnt mention fact in what you quoted and when i said factually in my qoute i was asking the other poster to present his argument that way . . hmmmmm

but please anytime i use those words if you feel they are wrong, point them out and prove it. If you are right i will gladly agree

 

[matchlight]

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.

That is a simple-minded and very inaccurate statement of what the First Amendment--and the Establishment Clause in particular--requires.