• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


LOL, ok, well lets address this first shall we. ;)

How many straight men eat pie, and how many straight women suck? Prolly a lot, right? What does it mean, or precisely, how germane to THE point was your rebuttal? Answer. Not very!


The liberal members here have attempted to refute Zyphlins OP, by way of a moral conversation, so too have some conservatives, however, I think I agree with Matchlight, in that, no one has any cornering of the market on what is and is not moral. One would first need to define it, and well that's a bit tricky; some of the best minds in history have tried, and we've come to a somewhat vague understanding of what exactly that is, albeit only on a personal and individual level. I won't even try.

To me, homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics. It really has nothing to do with marriage, or rights, or anything tangible. Rather, homosexuality doesn't look right. It looks like something went wrong, whether biological, or sociological. I don't see how homosexual-sexuality helps in any way, and my understanding of evolutionary science tells me that, species survive because of their ability to adapt, and reproduce. What does homosexuality bring to the table? Serious question, whether you believe it to be biological or sociological, what does it bring, what is the upside of it all from a species standpoint?

Now, the OP says there's an agenda. Yes, I agree. But it's not coordinated in some grand conspiracy, but rather targeted in very specific areas of influence, where the power of thought and speech are regulated NOT by law, but by manipulation. We call that, the media!


Tim-
 
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.

Not the same, but related and as a G, I feel as committed to the liberation of T as that of B and L. We're all queer in the eyes of the Bob Blaylocks of this world. Let's not make the divide-and-rule easier for them by saying, "Well, our interests and issues aren't exactly the same as yours, so you go your way, and we'll go ours." Of course, our agendas, problems and priorities aren't exactly the same - hence the entire argument I made previously - but they are close enough and inextricably linked. A society that oppresses trans people will oppress gay people. We show one another solidarity, or they pick us off one after the other.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

LOL, ok, well lets address this first shall we. ;)

How many straight men eat pie, and how many straight women suck? Prolly a lot, right? What does it mean, or precisely, how germane to THE point was your rebuttal? Answer. Not very!


The liberal members here have attempted to refute Zyphlins OP, by way of a moral conversation, so too have some conservatives, however, I think I agree with Matchlight, in that, no one has any cornering of the market on what is and is not moral. One would first need to define it, and well that's a bit tricky; some of the best minds in history have tried, and we've come to a somewhat vague understanding of what exactly that is, albeit only on a personal and individual level. I won't even try.
I may not be able to say exactly what morality is. I can clearly say what it isn't.

To me, homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics. It really has nothing to do with marriage, or rights, or anything tangible. Rather, homosexuality doesn't look right. It looks like something went wrong, whether biological, or sociological. I don't see how homosexual-sexuality helps in any way, and my understanding of evolutionary science tells me that, species survive because of their ability to adapt, and reproduce. What does homosexuality bring to the table? Serious question, whether you believe it to be biological or sociological, what does it bring, what is the upside of it all from a species standpoint?
Well your understanding of evolution is rather rudimentary. Sickle cell anemia brings nothing to the species. But the gene that causes it cause immunity to malaria.

If homosexuality is genetic what makes you think it wouldn't be a side effect of a gene that is valuable to the species. Homosexuality exists through out much of history and even among non human species. Any attempt to remove it has been a complete failure. So if it is genetic clearly it is kept in the genome for a reason.

So I don't think your assessment is based in science. I think it's based in emotion and you tossed in a few sciency words to cover that up.

Now, the OP says there's an agenda. Yes, I agree. But it's not coordinated in some grand conspiracy, but rather targeted in very specific areas of influence, where the power of thought and speech are regulated NOT by law, but by manipulation. We call that, the media!
There is a counter agenda that has been around for at least a millennium That seeks to convert censure or destroy homosexuals. So I think the term "agenda" is a bit weak. It's more of a revolution.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

If homosexuality is genetic what makes you think it wouldn't be a side effect of a gene that is valuable to the species. Homosexuality exists through out much of history and even among non human species. Any attempt to remove it has been a complete failure. So if it is genetic clearly it is kept in the genome for a reason.

Quite. If homosexuality is contained within genes, and is detrimental to human survival, and since homosexual behaviour has occurred throughout human history, and amongst non-human species, why wouldn't that gene have died out through natural selection, or why hasn't the species died out due to its effects? These pseudo-scientists make funny arguments.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Quite. If homosexuality is contained within genes, and is detrimental to human survival, and since homosexual behaviour has occurred throughout human history, and amongst non-human species, why wouldn't that gene have died out through natural selection, or why hasn't the species died out due to its effects? These pseudo-scientists make funny arguments.

They simply ignore science and state sciencey sounding words in an attempt to sound more knowledgeable than they really are.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

They simply ignore science and state sciencey sounding words in an attempt to sound more knowledgeable than they really are.
And yet end up sounding quite the opposite. Ironic.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

That doesn't stop 'em trying. ;)
 
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.

Ah. The appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Makes your point completely invalid.

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.

Attempting to simplify a complex issue. Is it because you don't know much about it or just disagree with it?
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Going to try to respond to those that seem to want to have an actual conversation, and haven't deliberately and horrendously distorted and misrepresented what was said in the OP, in hopes of having some worth while discussion.

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.

Well, to begin with, your second category is more accurate. It is not a lumping of all LGBT "people", but rather speaking of the movement. The two things, while related, are not muturally exclusive.

Beyond that, it's likely a difference in the way of our thinking. I in no way think EVERYONE within the LGBT movement feels and acts in this particular way. Just like I don't feel like everyone in the Anti-War movement, or the Pro-Gun Rights movement, or the Tea Party movement, or any movement ALL feel the same way on all things. However, when it comes to many movements, I do believe at times there are large enough stereotypical patterns or belief structures that can reasonably be painted across the entire movement.

Is the notion of "an agenda" simplistic? Absolutely. It's a broad statement, lacking nuance. I'd never suggest such. And if you refuse to function in those broad instances when dealing with various groups, I can understand why you'd disagree. I, personally, have had no real issue with that. I recognize that everyone doesn't speak as an academic, everyone doesn't go into every instanec with nuance the size of most of my posts, and that it's reasonable at times to speak in a broad sense so long as on is not foolishly thinking that said broad sense is universally true in the exact same fashion when you move to a more individualistic level.

As to your comments about "morality" and "normality". You're correct, they are subjective words. That is, indeed, the crux of my point. If they were objective words then any such "agenda" and effort to alter the broad cultural views would be fruitless and thus unlikely to even be attempted. It is BECAUSE these things are subjective, and because the movement has its "own definitions", that there is even the ability to attempt to alter the societal views/definitions of those words in such a way that notions surrounding LGBT's fall more in line with "moral" and "normal" than the opposite.

As to Jenner, and the atypical nature of the case, I think this is amazingly astute thought and is likely correct. However, it's a macro view that I think few on either side are really thinking of when reacting to this particular incident.

As to the "perjorative" connotation...it's clear some take it that way. But let me take a page out of your own book. You're interpirting that as a pejorative. It is a subjective notion. While some, undoubtably, speak of it as a negative, that does not inherently mean any use of the words is negative or meant to be negative. What's more, even the "negative" nature of it when it's meant to be that way could be subjective. The same reason that could lead some to make the claim as a negative could be viewed as a positive by others, and if the same phrase was used would be used in a positive manner. Whlie it's true some, likely many, use it with negative connotations in mind doesn't inherently mean it is.

To me, this is similar to something like Westboro. One can look at Westboro, acknowledge their right to speech, while not specifically endorsing their speech. Similarly, I think one could look at this and say "yes, I see a particular 'agenda' here beyond simply 'rights'" while at the same time not necessarily agreeing that said agenda is somehow a "bad" thing. Acknowledging that something exists is not the same thing as endorsing it, if that makes sense?

I don't particularly feel having an "agenda" is a bad thing. I believe a large amount of groups throughout this country have agendas. ESPECIALLY groups that are tied to politics in some way. Some I agree with, some I don't. The reason for this is because politics so rarely is JUST about laws and rights; ultimately it is about culture and society as well. I don't see anything different about saying "homosexual agenda" then talking about "gun culture"...both are absolutely said by some as a pejorative, but I don't believe either are inherently negative ideas, and I think both do exist.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

1. Jenner is trans which is not the same as gay so anything involving her transition would not be considered part of a "gay agenda", whether or not such an agenda exists.

The reality is issues regarding transgendered individuals and homosexual individuals have become intertwined and comingled routinely in our language and society; by people on both sides. One can simply look at much of the discussion going on about Jenner that is negative and see how often it's tied to gays/homosexuals a well. On the flip side, the activist movements and supporters willingly and purposefully conflate the two by lumping them into the same movement by the very nature of "LGBT". From what I've seen, when individuals utter the phrases "Gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" it's speaking, broadly, of LGBT type issues.


I agree, much of the discrimination comes from that and it makes sense why the movement would try to actively push for society's norms to change in a way that is not simply neutral, but actively positive, towards them. Such an "agenda" absolutely makes sense to me from both a political, and an individual day-to-day, perspective.

3. The reason people oppose the term "gay agenda" is because of the conspiratorial nature of the phrase

I can understand oppposition to it for that reason. What gets me, however, is the outright denail of such a notion instead of simply an attack on the connotations that people may be adding on top of it relating to such "conspiratorial" ideas. Especially in situations where there is no evidence to suggest it's being done with such over the top notions as part of it's reasoning.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

I mean by that phrase just what Justice Scalia meant by it in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas a dozen years ago:

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court . . . that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."

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.

We did number 1 for a very very long time. Now we're doing 2 in order to achieve a final result of 3. 2 makes 3 happen. It's a process.

An entirely logical and reasonable thought progression. Thus my questioning why I recall somewhat commonly hearing mockery at the notion of such an agenda.
 
Last edited:
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

All I hear is about the damn "gay" agenda. Why must every group that is only connected by sexuality have an agenda. Do heterosexuals have an agenda ?

I'd say you don't generally hear about a hetereosexual agenda because there's typically no real identifiable group or movement focused around such things.

I don't believe it's every group that is connected by sexuality that has an agenda. Rather, I'd say that most movements, especially ones connected to politics in some way, tend to have an agenda. A generalized ideological plan.

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.

I wouldn't even say just "re-shape". A group could have an "agenda" that is just as focused on maintaining societal perceptions as to re-shaping it.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

It's actually an attempt to remove older immorality.

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.

Attempting to keep the moral opprobrium that has been traditionally attached to "homosexual conduct" (whatever the Hell that is) is every bit as much of an agenda.

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.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

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

They can not become normal just because a minority insists that. However, a minority insisting that loudly, and more importantly convincingly, enough can cause that "minority" to grow into a "majority". And a majority can grow to a significant majority. And once you have a significant amount of the population believing that these acts that used to "deviate from the norm" are instead "normal"...then within that societal structure, those things ARE now "normal".
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

and it will still be rejected because theres no logic and rational behind it . . where the instant fail is lumping gays all together . .

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 particulra 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.

if you think a person has an agenda thats fine and i will gladly admit that is the case with some PEOPLE

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?
 
Last edited:
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."

I actually saw one of my fraternity brother's discussing this on Facebook a little while back and I found it amazingly engrossing.

He was on the opposite side of what you're saying, being critical of those associated with "LGB" that suggest it makes little sence ot have "T" be associated with it and some that he knew who were not seemingly very supportive or understanding of transexual issues.

Meanwhile, some of his friends were basically making the argument you made.

It was an astoundingly interesting back and forth to watch, simply because from an outside perspective...but still relatively plugged into political things...the notion of "LGBT" has been pushed and promoted so much that it has largely simply been taken as fact and as one collective thing.

While I understand there isn't a universal agreement within that "community" as it would relate to the Jenner case being an "example", I don't think that necessarily invalidates the general notion in my OP. Additionally, when so much of the movement itself is pushing itself as you LGBT, it seems difficult to simply ignore that portion as part of that group...at least for those who DO use all four letters...when it's convienent to their argument to do so.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

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.

I don't remember LGBT issues being significantly related to the Age of Enlightenment thinking and movements that pushed the changing societal norms. Perhaps you can link them to me?

A more narrow agenda fitting within a larger agenda doesn't make the mor narrow one non-existant, nor makes the larger one the same as the more narrow.

One could say that the anti-war movement and the sessionist movement are both narrow aspects that could both fall under a broader aspect of an anti-government movement.....but to suggest those two movements are the same, or to inherently suggest that an anti-government movement is thus inherently the same as an anti-war or sessionist one, would be wrong.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

I'd say you don't generally hear about a hetereosexual agenda because there's typically no real identifiable group or movement focused around such things.

I don't believe it's every group that is connected by sexuality that has an agenda. Rather, I'd say that most movements, especially ones connected to politics in some way, tend to have an agenda. A generalized ideological plan.



I wouldn't even say just "re-shape". A group could have an "agenda" that is just as focused on maintaining societal perceptions as to re-shaping it.


So homosexuals do or do not have an agenda as homosexuals aren't a collective body or mind. They are all over on the political spectrum Democrat ,republican , and independent . Just like their heterosexual counterparts .
A movment isn't particularly an agenda .
An agenda implies a formal meeting and all those who are homosexual are in contact and cahoots with one another .
.............. .................. .................. ...................
In jest
be honest is there a heterosexual agenda ;)
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

There's three general ways we as a soceity could be looking at the LGBT community and things surrounding it...

1. We could put focus on it, showing digust, disdain, and/or disapproval.

2. We could put focus on it, showing support, adulation, and praise.

3. We could simply not focus on it in any real fashion at all.
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.
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+. So while the end goal of the 'gay agenda' is #3, it's fair to say that there are quite a few people who use #2 as tactics to achieve that (although, like all things, I wouldn't accuse The Gays of having a monolithic stance!).

With that said, it does seem that people on the High Right often cry wolf, because the 'status quo' of #3 will look different from the status quo of ten years ago. The Jenner thing recently is a really good example of that - someone on the cover of Vanity Fair showing mastectomy scars wouldn't be accused of spreading a 'mastectomy agenda', and the same rings true of someone with a prosthetic leg, someone telling the story of 'my struggle against depression', someone who happens to be in an inter-racial marriage, and so on. The original Jenner article does not show an example of #2, because it's just celebrity gossip - it actually sits with #3, but it's being accused of #2 - and the same is true with eg showing a 'gay relationship' on TV, so long as the 'gay' aspect of it isn't sensationalised beyond all reason. The fact that the story picked up far more interest than others showed that as a culture we are not at #3 yet though - so the 'gay agenda' continues.

I think the 'gay agenda' is more ridiculed by The Left (not monolithic) not because it doesn't exist, but because of how it is viewed by The Right (also not monolithic). To reference Don't Ask Don't Tell - there are some who have the view that "it's OK to be gay in private, but to be gay in the public domain is subversive/evil/bad/etc", and simply being gay in public is sometimes accused of 'spreading the gay agenda' when it really isn't.

To summarise; personally, I think the 'gay agenda' is equality and tolerance in all things. I think that sometimes this involves more active campaigning which focuses on non-heterosexuality in a positive way, and I think that sometimes this pro-gay campaigning is complained about under the term 'the gay agenda'. However, I also think that if there was equality and tolerance in all things then this 'pro-gay campaigning' wouldn't be needed, but that there would still be 'gay' activity in the public domain and that some would falsely label this 'the gay agenda', and that this has already started to happen. It might be 'the gay agenda' to cause a shift in culture, but when that culture has shifted (as it is doing) then to reflect that culture isn't necessarily 'promoting homosexuality'.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

The reality is issues regarding transgendered individuals and homosexual individuals have become intertwined and comingled routinely in our language and society; by people on both sides. One can simply look at much of the discussion going on about Jenner that is negative and see how often it's tied to gays/homosexuals a well. On the flip side, the activist movements and supporters willingly and purposefully conflate the two by lumping them into the same movement by the very nature of "LGBT". From what I've seen, when individuals utter the phrases "Gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" it's speaking, broadly, of LGBT type issues.
Sure, trans and gay issues are often intertwined. They are intertwined under categories like "LGBT" and "queer", but they are not intertwined under the category "gay" since gay people and trans people are two separate groups. It's just like Black and Hispanic issues are often handled together under the category "people of color", but not under the category "Black" which is limited to issues involving Black people. Ultimately, if someone is using "gay" and "homosexual" to speak broadly of all LGBT issues, then they are using the wrong words and I suspect many people in the LGBT community would have a problem with that. It also makes me think that people who do so have a poor understanding of the distinctions between lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and trans people.

I can understand oppposition to it for that reason. What gets me, however, is the outright denail of such a notion instead of simply an attack on the connotations that people may be adding on top of it relating to such "conspiratorial" ideas. Especially in situations where there is no evidence to suggest it's being done with such over the top notions as part of it's reasoning.
Because the term "gay agenda" is primarily used as a weapon against gay people. When people use words as weapons, those on the receiving end don't usually pause to figure out the weapon's nuance.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

I may not be able to say exactly what morality is. I can clearly say what it isn't.


Are you going in circles with your logic? ;)


Well your understanding of evolution is rather rudimentary. Sickle cell anemia brings nothing to the species. But the gene that causes it cause immunity to malaria.


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.


If homosexuality is genetic what makes you think it wouldn't be a side effect of a gene that is valuable to the species.



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


Homosexuality exists through out much of history and even among non human species.



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.


Any attempt to remove it has been a complete failure. So if it is genetic clearly it is kept in the genome for a reason.

Why?



So I don't think your assessment is based in science. I think it's based in emotion and you tossed in a few sciency words to cover that up.


Sciency words? My assessment is based on objective observations, not subjective ones. That's the difference here. 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.



There is a counter agenda that has been around for at least a millennium That seeks to convert censure or destroy homosexuals. So I think the term "agenda" is a bit weak. It's more of a revolution.


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.

Andalublue -
Quite. If homosexuality is contained within genes, and is detrimental to human survival, and since homosexual behaviour has occurred throughout human history, and amongst non-human species, why wouldn't that gene have died out through natural selection, or why hasn't the species died out due to its effects? These pseudo-scientists make funny arguments.

Hmm, all through human history you say? Well if that means the last 5000 years or so, then I guess maybe, but I would warn you that homosexual behavior has been recorded mostly for the benefit of the aristocracy as a right of passage. That feds more into a subjugation fueled by self indulgence than any real measure of exclusive homosexuality. By the way, who said homosexuality was detrimental to human survival?

They simply ignore science and state sciencey sounding words in an attempt to sound more knowledgeable than they really are.

I think you're underestimating my ability to navigate this topic, but if it makes you feel better then have at er.


Tim-
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

The original Jenner article does not show an example of #2, because it's just celebrity gossip - it actually sits with #3, but it's being accused of #2

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.

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.
 
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Sure, trans and gay issues are often intertwined. They are intertwined under categories like "LGBT" and "queer", but they are not intertwined under the category "gay" since gay people and trans people are two separate groups. It's just like Black and Hispanic issues are often handled together under the category "people of color", but not under the category "Black" which is limited to issues involving Black people. Ultimately, if someone is using "gay" and "homosexual" to speak broadly of all LGBT issues, then they are using the wrong words and I suspect many people in the LGBT community would have a problem with that. It also makes me think that people who do so have a poor understanding of the distinctions between lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and trans people.


Because the term "gay agenda" is primarily used as a weapon against gay people. When people use words as weapons, those on the receiving end don't usually pause to figure out the weapon's nuance.


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-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom